[DNSOP] Re: Collision Free Key Tags for DNSSEC draft

Weelll... We could say that signers MUST NOT create colliding key tags, and that verifiers and similar tooling must continue to work as they currently do. That way, perhaps in (next decade + 1 year) we can discuss updating the verifier behavior. "The best time to plant a tree was 20 years a

[DNSOP] Re: Collision Free Key Tags for DNSSEC draft

I disagree that "keytag collisions have never been a problem other than in contrived examples" -- I cannot easily find the message now, but I posted an anecdote a while back about deleting the wrong key/keyfile because I stupidly just looked at the keytag, instead of the actual key. Yes, the RFC

[DNSOP] Re: [Ext] Re: Call for Adoption: draft-davies-internal-tld

On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 12:11 PM, Kim Davies wrote: > Hi Petr, > > Quoting Petr Spacek on Tuesday April 22, 2025: > > The fact of the matter is that some people want "no delegation" and some > people want "insecure delegation". That ship has sailed, and we ended up > with "no delegation". DNSOP c

[DNSOP] Re: Opsdir telechat review of draft-ietf-dnsop-must-not-sha1-06

On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 11:08 AM, Wes Hardaker wrote: > writes: > > I suggest to add a remark in the IANA considerations section that this > columns are being created by > > [...] > > That's a good suggestion (and I'm surprised we didn't). Done! > Yes, indeed, thank you! Eric Vynck will be ask

[DNSOP] Re: Call for Adoption: draft-davies-internal-tld

t is being proposed here? > > thanks, > >Geoff > > On 15 Apr 2025, at 6:38 pm, Benno Overeinder wrote: > > All, > > At IETF 122, there appeared to be some agreement to adopt this work within > DNSOP. > > Below are the relevant meetin

[DNSOP] Requesting adoption: draft-davies-internal-tld - "A Top-level Domain for Private Use"

Dear DNSOP-Chairs, The authors of draft-davies-internal-tld - "A Top-level Domain for Private Use" would like to request a call for adoption for this document. I had swapped out all state, and had to go search to swap it in again. Here

[DNSOP] Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-dnsop-compact-denial-of-existence-07.txt

[ - IESG for clutter] On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 1:21 PM, Shumon Huque wrote: > This revision addresses all the IESG review feedback. > Ta! Also thanks to Murray for the discussion and clearing his DISCUSS; I've just approved publication. Much thanks to the authors and WG, W > Shumon. > > ---

[DNSOP] Re: AD review of draft-ietf-dnsop-must-not-sha1-02

On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 10:01 AM, Eric Vyncke < evyncke=40cisco@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > Dear all, > > > > Thanks for your patience as I was on vacations when the publication of > this I-D was requested. > Thanks, an no worries… As the DNSOP responsible AD is also an author, I was selected

[DNSOP] Re: AD review of draft-ietf-dnsop-must-not-ecc-gost-02

On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 11:15 AM, Eric Vyncke < evyncke=40cisco@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > Dear all, > > > > Thanks for your patience as I was on vacations when the publication of > this I-D was requested. As the DNSOP responsible AD is also an author, I > was selected as the acting responsible

[DNSOP] Re: AD review of draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8624-bis-05

On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 6:55 AM, Eric Vyncke < evyncke=40cisco@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > > Dear all, > > > > Thanks for your patience as I was on vacations when the publication of > this I-D was requested. > No worries, and thanks. Apologies for my mail client having renumbered the ordered l

[DNSOP] Re: Is .INTERNAL a special use domain name?

responses… W On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 8:39 PM, Warren Kumari wrote: > On Wed, Feb 05, 2025 at 9:39 AM, Duane Wessels dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > On Feb 4, 2025, at 4:49 PM, Kim Davies wrote: > > > > Hi folks, > > We have published a new version of the draft intend

[DNSOP] Re: Is .INTERNAL a special use domain name?

discussion both > in the meeting, and subsequently, on whether this should be a work item and > also whether the domain merited consideration as a special-use domain name > per RFC 6761. I don’t think there was clear consensus on either, but to > further the discussion on the latter

[DNSOP] Re: [Ext] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8624-bis-03

On Sat, Feb 08, 2025 at 12:17 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On Feb 7, 2025, at 17:38, tjw ietf wrote: > > Authors have produced a new version which we feel addresses Paul H’s > comments on “MAY” and a few other changes. > > Thanks! These changes do indeed make the wording in the doc match what I > t

[DNSOP] Re: [Ext] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8624-bis-03

On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 1:52 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On Jan 29, 2025, at 10:23, Tim Wicinski wrote: > > During the DNSOP chairs call, myself, Suzanne, Benno, AD Warren and Author > Warren discussed this requirement. After much discussion, we came to two > points we agree on: > > - We DO want t

[DNSOP] Re: For consideration by DNSOP: "DNS Update with JSON"

On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 8:07 AM, Bob Harold wrote: > On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 2:41 PM Paul Hoffman > wrote: > >> Greetings again. The following is a proposal to help end-users who are >> told "please enter this record in your zone to prove your existence". It >> simplifies the process without aut

[DNSOP] Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8624-bis draft-ietf-dnsop-must-not-ecc-gost draft-ietf-dnsop-must-not-sha1

On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 3:28 AM, Loganaden Velvindron wrote: > On Tue, 7 Jan 2025 at 17:39, Peter Thomassen > wrote: > > Hi, > > I support draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8624-bis and draft-ietf-dnsop-must-not-sha1 > moving forward. > > I also support > > I don't know enough about GOST to have an opinion on

[DNSOP] Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8624-bis draft-ietf-dnsop-must-not-ecc-gost draft-ietf-dnsop-must-not-sha1

On Wed, Jan 08, 2025 at 7:07 AM, Stefan Ubbink < Stefan.Ubbink=40sidn...@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > On Mon, 6 Jan 2025 21:02:52 -0500 > Tim Wicinski wrote: > > All > > Hello, > > Welcome back from holidays, those who have returned. Discussions with the > working group and authors and we feel these

[DNSOP] Re: [Ext] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8624-bis draft-ietf-dnsop-must-not-ecc-gost draft-ietf-dnsop-must-not-sha1

On Tue, Jan 07, 2025 at 1:44 PM, Paul Wouters wrote: > On Tue, 7 Jan 2025, Paul Hoffman wrote: > > draft-ietf-dnsop-must-not-sha1 > > This document is fine as-is, with one minor nit: Appendix C should be > marked for removal by the RFC Editor, similar to Appendix B. > > I think the Title and Abst

[DNSOP] Re: [Ext] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8624-bis draft-ietf-dnsop-must-not-ecc-gost draft-ietf-dnsop-must-not-sha1

On Tue, Jan 07, 2025 at 12:17 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > This set of drafts is a useful addition to the DNSSEC cannon and should be > published as RFCs. > Thank you for your review and feedback. We have addressed these most of these below, and posted new versions in Github. --Paul Hoffman > > =

[DNSOP] Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8624-bis draft-ietf-dnsop-must-not-ecc-gost draft-ietf-dnsop-must-not-sha1

Hi all. [ Meta-comment / email ] Thank you all for your comments. Wes and I have addressed many of these comments, and posted new (editor) versions in git so you can review the changes, see how they look, confirm we addressed your concerns, etc. [0] DNSSEC Cryptographic Algorithm Recommendation

[DNSOP] Re: [Ext] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC9499 (8189)

On Tue, Nov 26, 2024 at 6:25 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On Nov 26, 2024, at 14:41, A L wrote: > > To use the "search" function one needs to know if a term is at all > defined. To the reader, it may not be obvious if there's a term or just a > word. Having alphabetical order, can establish the fac

[DNSOP] Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-public-resolver-errors-00.txt

On Tue, Nov 05, 2024 at 1:26 PM, Mark Nottingham < mnot=40mnot@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > Hi DNSOP, > > Public DNS resolvers (such as 1.1.1.1, 8.8.8.8, and others) are > increasingly subject to requirements to censor responses flowing through > them. When this happens, it's important to be trans

[DNSOP] IETF Chairing Pipeline…

Hi there DNSOPers, Apologies if this mail seems familiar - I sent it (or a variation on it) every few months. I also send it to most of my / Ops WGs, and so you might see multiple copies. I do think it is important though, so… An evergreen topic in the IETF & IESG is how to grow the IETF "leaders

[DNSOP] Re: [Ext] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8624 (8144)

Yup, I agree. While what is being proposed may be the right thing to do, the Errata process is not the appropriate way to accomplish this. >From "IESG Processing of RFC Errata for the IETF Stream" ( https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-iesg-processing-of-rfc-errata-for-the-ietf-stream-

[DNSOP] Approved: draft-ietf-dnsop-avoid-fragmentation

Hi there Authors, IESG, WG, and Secretariat, draft-ietf-dnsop-avoid-fragmentation - "IP Fragmentation Avoidance in DNS over UDP" is now approved. I'd like to thank everyone, especially the authors and Benno Overeinder, for a

[DNSOP] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-avoid-fragmentation-19.txt

On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 7:44 AM, Štěpán Němec wrote: > Some minor (editorial) issues I noticed in the current (19) draft: > Thank you very much everyone - this document has been a long time in the making. As mentioned in the document: "This document was originally intended to be a BCP, but due

[DNSOP] Re: [EDE] Registering a few more error codes

On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 9:22 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > In the current registry for Extended DNS Error Codes (RFC 8914), there are > codes that may be interesting to add: > > * One to say that the response was deliberately minimal (RFC 8482) > * One to say that the response comes from a loc

[DNSOP] Re: Dnsdir telechat review of draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc7958bis-05

On Mon, Sep 02, 2024 at 4:01 AM, Petr Špaček wrote: > Reviewer: Petr Špaček > Review result: Ready with Issues > > I was assigned as the dnsdir reviewer for draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc7958bis-05. > For more information about the DNS Directorate, please see https://wiki. > ietf.org/en/group/dnsdir > Th

[DNSOP] Re: [Ext] Request: Review changes - draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc7958bis-03 → 04.

On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 6:21 PM, Michael StJohns wrote: > On 8/29/2024 4:24 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > > On Aug 27, 2024, at 16:46, Warren Kumari > wrote: > > Thank you very much for your comments. We've had some discussions, and the > authors will be publishing a n

[DNSOP] Re: [Ext] Request: Review changes - draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc7958bis-03 → 04.

On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 11:51 AM, Petr Špaček wrote: > Hi everyone, > > > Hi everyone! Thank you very much for your comments. We've had some discussions, and the authors will be publishing a new version in the next few days addressing these. In addition, I will be deferring the IESG Evaluation

[DNSOP] Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC9276 (8090)

On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 3:53 PM, John Levine wrote: > It appears that RFC Errata System said: > > - > [ZONEENUM] Wang, Z., Xiao, L., and R. Wang, "An efficient DNSSEC zone > enumeration algorithm", DOI 10.2495/MIIT130591, April 2014, org/10.2495/MIIT130591>. > > This

[DNSOP] Re: [Ext] Request: Review changes - draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc7958bis-03 → 04.

On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 10:28 AM, Edward Lewis wrote: > On Aug 20, 2024, at 20:42, Michael StJohns > wrote: > > Hi Paul - > > I'm confused from your responses below - is this a WG document where the > WG gets to decide, or is this an IANA document (like the one it was > replacing) where IANA get

[DNSOP] Request: Review changes - draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc7958bis-03 → 04.

Dear DNSOP, During the DNSDIR review of draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc7958bis-03, Petr Špaček identified an issue: if you include the DNSKEY material you also need to include the flags. The authors have published a new version addressing these changes, as well as addressing more minor comments received dur

[DNSOP] Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6781 (6692)

r > serves their own DNSKEY RRSIG. > > They only need import each other's ZSKs, but not exchange KSKs or RRSIGs. > > This is exactly the point of the erratum. > > Best, > Peter > > [1]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/115/materials/ > slides-115-dnsop-multi-

[DNSOP] Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6781 (6692)

Hi there WG, I am trying to go through and clean up all open Operations Errata. I would really appreciate some input / advice from the WG on what I should do here — I've read and reread the thread and the document, and cannot figure out if this Errata is correct or not…. I'm tempted to mark thi

[DNSOP] Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7344 (7997)

On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 11:13 PM, Paul Wouters wrote: > This errata is correct. > > Paul > Doh! Yes, it is… Paul, would you mind being the one to mark it as Verified? I'm an author, and while I don't really see a much conflict of interest for an AD to mark an errata as verified, it's probably

[DNSOP] Re: Approved: draft-ietf-dnsop-qdcount-is-one

On Thu, Jun 20 2024 at 1:30 PM, Joe Abley wrote: > Hi Warren, > > On Jun 20, 2024, at 18:56, Warren Kumari wrote: > > Hi there Authors, IESG, WG and Secretariat, > > draft-ietf-dnsop-qdcount-is-one - "In the DNS, QDCOUNT is (usually) One" > is now approv

[DNSOP] Approved: draft-ietf-dnsop-qdcount-is-one

Hi there Authors, IESG, WG and Secretariat, draft-ietf-dnsop-qdcount-is-one - "In the DNS, QDCOUNT is (usually) One" is now approved. I'd like to thank everyone, especially the authors and Eric Vyncke, for all of their hard work

[DNSOP] Re: Mahesh Jethanandani's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-qdcount-is-one-03: (with COMMENT)

On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 3:09 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani wrote: > Mahesh Jethanandani has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-dnsop-qdcount-is-one-03: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC

[DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-zoneversion, draft-ietf-dnsop-qdcount-is-one progress…

Hi there, authors and WG. I recently wrote up a summary of the process for authors who are new to the IETF. While doing so, I realized that it might be useful to share this even with experienced authors as well (and also WGs) , so here is a (very) brief overview of the process: After the WG chair

[DNSOP] Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8945 (7983)

On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 3:10 PM, Paul Vixie < paul=40redbarn@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > this is a good fix to a true error in this rfc. > Excellent, thank you — I've just marked it as verified. W > RFC Errata System wrote on 2024-06-11 06:00: > > The following errata report has been submi

[DNSOP]Re: AD Review of: draft-ietf-dnsop-qdcount-is-one

On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 6:03 AM, Ray Bellis wrote: > On 28/05/2024 22:12, Warren Kumari wrote: > > Hi there, authors (and WG), > > Thank you for this document, I found it clear, useful, and an easy read. > > I do have a few comments/nits; addressing these now should help t

[DNSOP]AD Review of: draft-ietf-dnsop-qdcount-is-one

Hi there, authors (and WG), Thank you for this document, I found it clear, useful, and an easy read. I do have a few comments/nits; addressing these now should help the IETF LC and IESG evaluation go more smoothly. Please SHOUT loudly once you've had a chance to address these, and I'll start IET

[DNSOP]Approved: draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-bootstrapping

Hi there Authors, WG, IESG and Secretariat, draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-bootstrapping - "Automatic DNSSEC Bootstrapping using Authenticated Signals from the Zone's Operator" is now approved. I'd like to thank everyone, especial

[DNSOP]DELEG Chair Announcement.

[ Apologies for the wide distribution - I sent the original request to multiple WGs, and so figured this announcement should go to the same. ] Hi all, First, huge thanks to everyone who volunteered to serve as chairs for the (in the process of being chartered) DELEG WG. We had a large selection

[DNSOP]Re: [IANA #1362913] expert review for draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-bootstrapping (dns-parameters)

Hi all, I've read the thread multiple times, and can definitely see both sides of the conversation. As Paul W is wearing both an AD hat and the DE hat, he has asked me to make the decision and instruct him. While I really don't love it, I believe that it makes sense to stick with _signal. Reaso

[DNSOP]Re: Paul Wouters' Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-bootstrapping-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 11:48 AM, Peter Thomassen wrote: > Hi Paul, Warren, > > Following up on the telechat: > > On 5/15/24 20:34, Peter Thomassen wrote: > > Section 2: > > The DS enrollment methods described in Section 3 of [RFC8078] > are deprecated and SHOULD NOT be used. >

[DNSOP]Our reading of consensus on draft-hardaker-dnsop-rfc8624-bis, and the "must-not-algorithm" docs.

Hello everybody, Firstly thank you for all of the discussion on these documents - we really appreciate the review and feedback. We’ve read all of the discussion(s) and will be updating the documents to address your comments, based on our understanding of the group’s consensus so far. While revie

[DNSOP] You, yes you, could be chair of the (proposed) Deleg WG…

Hi there all, I'm sending this to multiple lists, so you might get multiple copies… As mentioned during the Deleg BoF, we are casting a wide net for chairs for the (proposed) Deleg WG. The DNS is "core plumbing" for the Internet. It is also one of the very few protocols which has scaled through

[DNSOP] Editorial / OCD nit on draft-ietf-dnsop-generalized-notify

Hey there authors and WG, While reading draft-ietf-dnsop-generalized-notify - "Generalized DNS Notifications" I noticed (in the Abstract): "This document extends the use of DNS NOTIFY ([RFC1996] beyond conventional zone trans

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-bootstrapping-08.txt

Thank you, I have requested IETF LC be started on this document. W On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 9:03 AM, Peter Thomassen wrote: > Dear DNSOP, > > Here's a quick change log, all are editorial: > > - Editorial changes from AD Review > - Updated implementation section > - Change capitalization of term

Re: [DNSOP] Demo of Github issues for tracking documents and next steps..

Gah…. Apologies all, autocomplete fail — turns out "dnsop-chairs" starts with "dnsop". Sorry for the noise, W On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 2:36 PM, Warren Kumari wrote: > Heyya chairs, > > I futzed some more with the demo GH issue tracker I created on the call,

[DNSOP] Demo of Github issues for tracking documents and next steps..

Heyya chairs, I futzed some more with the demo GH issue tracker I created on the call, and invited you to the repo: https://github.com/wkumari/Temp-DNSOP_Doc_Tracker/issues . I did also play more with github projects (and some other project / ticket things), but they don't really looks like they w

[DNSOP] AD Review of: draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-bootstrapping

Hi there, authors (and WG), Thank you for this document, I found it clear, useful, and an easy read. I do have a few comments/nits; addressing these now should help the IETF LC and IESG evaluation go more smoothly. Please SHOUT loudly once you've had a chance to address these, and I'll start IE

[DNSOP] Approved: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting - "DNS Error Reporting"

Hi there Authors, IESG, Secretariat, and WG, draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting - "DNS Error Reporting" is now approved. I'd like to thank everyone, especially the authors, and Paul Wouters, for all of their hard work - it

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] on private use TLDS: .interNAL -> .LAN

On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 6:07 AM, Toerless Eckert wrote: > Thanks, Paul > > My comment: > > https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/ > proposed-top-level-domain-string-for-private-use-24-01-2024/submissions/ > eckert-toerless-27-02-2024 Summary of Submission: > I would like to see a BCP

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] AD Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8109bis

On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 8:57 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On Jan 31, 2024, at 17:39, Paul Wouters wrote: > > On Wed, 31 Jan 2024, Paul Hoffman wrote: > > On Jan 31, 2024, at 15:15, Paul Wouters wrote: > > Can they write a draft with why they are going against the RFC? > > Yes, that is possible. Ho

[DNSOP] AD Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8109bis

Hi there, authors (and WG), Thank you for this document — I have some questions / comments before I can progress it. Firstly, the (presumably) easy one: The document says: "This document, when published, obsoletes RFC 8109." - can you add something along the lines of "Section 1.1 contains a list

Re: [DNSOP] Dealing with some open Errata:

Whoops, apologies, the previous reply was in my Drafts and I hit send on the wrong version. I will ask the IANA to update the reference to be RFC4340, and include a link to this thread. W On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 1:27 PM, Warren Kumari wrote: > On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 7:51 PM, John Lev

Re: [DNSOP] Dealing with some open Errata:

On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 7:51 PM, John Levine wrote: > It appears that Paul Wouters said: > > Section 4.1.2. says: > | URI| _dccp | [RFC7566] | > > I think this might have been part of a list used to "reserve" the names of > (transport) protocols, so that con

Re: [DNSOP] Errata 7689 against RFC 8906, "A Common Operational Problem in DNS Servers: Failure to Communicate"

Thanks all, done! W On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 5:01 AM, Joe Abley wrote: > Hi Warren, > > On 15 Jan 2024, at 22:49, Warren Kumari wrote: > > Seeing as the document says you should "expect: flag: aa to be present", > it does seem like it would be better if it also sai

[DNSOP] Errata 7689 against RFC 8906, "A Common Operational Problem in DNS Servers: Failure to Communicate"

Hi there all, As part of the Great Errata Cleanup of 2024, I'm going through reported Errata and trying to close them. I'm just dealing with the ones that I can do myself, but there are some which I need WG input on. I'd like to get feedback by Monday Jan 29th, otherwise I'll just go with my prop

[DNSOP] Dealing with some open Errata:

[ + Dave Crocker (author), Paul Wouters, Frederico Neves (registry experts)] Hi there all, As part of the Great Errata Cleanup of 2024, I'm going through reported Errata and trying to close them. I'm just dealing with the ones that I can do myself, but there are some which I need WG input on. Th

Re: [DNSOP] Notification Call for Adoption: draft-bash-rfc7958bis

I think that this is an important and useful document, and that it should be adopted…. W On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 12:15 AM, Geoff Huston wrote: > I am in support of adoption by the Working Group. The process of peer > review has proved to be highly valuable over the years and the result is

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5933-bis-14.txt

Dear DNSOP, Just a quick note / reminder to the WG: This is the document which moved to the ISE and became draft-makarenko-gost2012-dnssec. It is still sitting in my queue, and has been for 400+ days. I'm planning on marking it DEAD once draft-makarenko-gost2012-dnssec progresses (which, we think,

Re: [DNSOP] Paul Wouters' Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting-07: (with DISCUSS)

On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 9:18 PM, Paul Wouters wrote: > Paul Wouters has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting-07: Discuss > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel f

Re: [DNSOP] RFC7477 typo?

On Fri, Dec 01, 2023 at 4:03 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: > It’s stopping the serial changing too fast. > Well, yeah, obviously, but what is "too fast"? Why is 2^16 OK but 2^20 or 2^30 or 2^18.365 not? W > -- > Mark Andrews > > On 2 Dec 2023, at 06:43, Warren Kum

Re: [DNSOP] RFC7477 typo?

Dear DNSOP (and Wes), I was wading through my mailbox and realized that I hadn't seen any discussion of this. I'm quite sure that 2^16 is not a typo (there is quite a lot of text around this section), but I cannot really figure out / remember what exactly the threat model here is. Here are the

Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: Change the status of GOST Signature Algorithms in DNSSEC in the IETF stream to Historic

On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 6:08 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > [[Forwarding this to DNSOP because apparently the IESG forgot to...]] > Thank you. > The IESG has received a request from an individual participant to make the > following status changes: > > - RFC5933 from Proposed Standard to Historic >

Re: [DNSOP] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8806 (7692)

Doh! That is correct… Thank you! W On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 8:59 AM, Joe Abley wrote: > Verified. > > On 31 Oct 2023, at 04:10, RFC Errata System > wrote: > > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8806, > "Running a Root Server Local to a Resolver". > > --

[DNSOP] AD Review: draft-ietf-dnsop-zoneversion

Hi there, authors (and WG), I support what the document is trying to accomplish — I think that ZONEVERSIONs will be really useful once standardized and deployed. Unfortunately though, I believe that it needs revision and clarification before it is ready for last call. I started performing my AD

[DNSOP] Warren did a bad (was Re: Datatracker State Update Notice: )

and am still swapping it back in… On Thu, Dec 01, 2022 at 10:00 PM, Warren Kumari wrote: > Dear authors, and ISE (and Roman, PaulW, PaulH) > > Thank you for updating the document to address Paul Wouter's DISCUSS > position ( https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dns

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-structured-dns-error-06.txt

I still don't understand why (other than marketing/advertising) this is needed — the EDE "4.18. Extended DNS Error Code 17 - Filtered" ("The server is unable to respond to the request because the domain is on a blocklist as requested by the client. Functionally, this amounts to "you requested that

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] AD Review of: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting

rror to a > monitoring agent specified by the authoritative server. The error is > encoded in the QNAME, thus the very act of sending the query is to report > the error. > > Let me know if this works for you. > Perfectly, and thank you. W > Warmly, > > Roy > > On 13 Oct 2

[DNSOP] AD Review of: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting

Hi there, authors (and WG), Thank you for this document, I found it clear, useful, and an easy read. I did have one comment / clarification which I think would help the document. I don't think that it is especially clear to the first time reader that the query itself is the error report. Yes, it

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-structured-dns-error-06.txt

On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 4:05 AM, tirumal reddy wrote: > On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 at 21:37, Tommy Pauly org> wrote: > >> >> >> On Oct 11, 2023, at 3:17 PM, Warren Kumari wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 12:56 PM,

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-structured-dns-error-06.txt

On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 12:56 PM, Vodafone Gianpaolo Angelo Scalone < Gianpaolo-Angelo.Scalone=40vodafone@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > I really love this draft and would like to see browser side implementation > for the benefit of customers user experience. Today several services are > implemented

Re: [DNSOP] [Last-Call] [Ext] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis-09

On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 9:33 AM, Paul Wouters wrote: > On Sun, 17 Sep 2023, Salz, Rich wrote: > > [ speaking as individual only ] > > On the other hand, spending a week or two repeating a cycle to get an > important term in the current document seems like a better solution. > > If the WG agrees t

Re: [DNSOP] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-dnsop-avoid-fragmentation-14

After discussions with the chairs, I'm (temporarily) returning this to the WG. W On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 12:14 PM, Petr Špaček wrote: > On 18. 08. 23 17:33, Peter van Dijk wrote: > > Hello Tim, > > On Wed, 2023-08-16 at 15:45 -0700, Tim Wicinski via Datatracker wrote: > > Tim Wicinski has requ

[DNSOP] AD Review of: draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis

1: Please add to the Abstract saying what this changes in RFC2308, and how it obsoletes RFC8499. E.g: "This document updates RFC 2308 by clarifying the definitions of Forwarder and QNAME, and obsoletes RFC 8499 by adding multiple terms and additional clarifications. A comprehensive list can be fond

Re: [DNSOP] IETF117 Chairs Actions

Heyya, Just confirming that I can start IESG Eval on draft-ietf-dnsop-caching-resolution-failures ? I'm assuming so, but… W On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 6:57 PM, Tim Wicinski wrote: > All, > > Thanks for another prod

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Re: rfc8499bis: lame

On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 1:14 PM, Edward Lewis wrote: > On 6/8/23, 11:23 PM, "DNSOP on behalf of Bob Bownes -Seiri" < > dnsop-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of bow...@seiri.com> wrote: > > I would posit that the potential to view the word as offensive has > increased as language usage has changed in t

Re: [DNSOP] Delegation acceptance checks [was: Re: [Ext] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extension for lame delegation definition]

On Fri, May 05, 2023 at 4:39 AM, Peter Thomassen wrote: > On 5/4/23 20:07, Havard Eidnes wrote: > > As an example, it's quite common for people to register a domain and point > the DNS at some nameservers which they don't control, and have no > relationship with. > > If this is common, I'm abh

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extension for lame delegation definition

On Thu, May 04, 2023 at 5:07 AM, Mark Delany wrote: > On 03May23, Edward Lewis apparently wrote: > > Was any "lame" situation defined which wasn't the result of a bad > configuration? > > The difference between observing a symptom and diagnosing a cause is > great. I say this to caution against t

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extension for lame delegation definition

On Tue, May 02, 2023 at 7:43 PM, Havard Eidnes wrote: > My parent says that the NS for exmple.com are ns1.example.com, ns2. > example.com , but I (example.com) say that my NS are ns1.example.com, ns2. > example.com *and* ns3.example.com. I don't (personally) think that this > is a lame delegation

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extension for lame delegation definition

On Tue, May 02, 2023 at 12:14 PM, Peter Thomassen wrote: > On 5/2/23 17:52, Joe Abley wrote: > > On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 11:09, Peter Thomassen mailto:On > Tue, May 2, 2023 at 11:09, Peter Thomassen <> wrote: > > If one of the NS answers non-authoritatively, then it doesn't serve a > proper NS RRs

Re: [DNSOP] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-23: (with COMMENT)

On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 5:18 PM, John Scudder wrote: > John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-23: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to

Re: [DNSOP] Dnsdir telechat review of draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-23

Just a quick more to say thank you for your review. Warren. On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 11:19 AM, Vladimír Čunát wrote: > Reviewer: Vladimír Čunát > Review result: Ready > > There've only been nits between -22 and -23; certainly no objections there > and thus nothing new for me to say. > _

Re: [DNSOP] Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-23: (with COMMENT)

On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 10:11 AM, Lars Eggert wrote: > Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-23: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to c

Re: [DNSOP] Paul Wouters' Yes on draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-23: (with COMMENT)

On Sun, Apr 23, 2023 at 4:16 PM, Paul Wouters wrote: > Paul Wouters has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-23: Yes > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this

Re: [DNSOP] Éric Vyncke's Yes on draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-23: (with COMMENT)

On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 4:04 AM, Éric Vyncke wrote: > Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-23: Yes > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this >

Re: [DNSOP] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-23: (with COMMENT)

On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 4:54 PM, Roman Danyliw wrote: > Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-23: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free t

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Meaning of lame delegation

On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 6:57 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On Apr 11, 2023, at 3:06 PM, Paul Wouters wrote: > > No one proposed to retire the term? > > Not yet, I believe. > > If unclear and additionally inappropriate from an inclusive language point > of view, why not document the term as is, with

Re: [DNSOP] Meaning of lame delegation

On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 5:13 PM, Mats Dufberg < mats.dufberg=40internetstiftelsen...@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > > > mats> For the *delegation* to be lame it is not enough for one name > mats> server to be ``broken''. The entire set must be such that the path > mats> to the child zone content is no

[DNSOP] Warren Kumari's Yes on draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https-12: (with COMMENT)

Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https-12: Yes When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https

Re: [DNSOP] Additional Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-http

On Sun, Mar 19, 2023 at 5:23 AM, Tim Wicinski wrote: > All > > The 7 day followup WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https has finished up, > and I thank folks for their reviews of the changes. > I've added a comment to the shepherd write up about the reasoning behind > this and a link to Warren's em

Re: [DNSOP] Breaking the logjam that is draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https

[ Top-post ] On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 12:39 PM, Warren Kumari wrote: > Hi there all, > > I was really hoping that it wouldn't come to this, but… > > > We approved draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https on 2022-05-22, and has been stuck > in MISREF state ever since[0], waiting on

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Implementor's status on draft-ietf-dnsop-avoid-fragmentation: BIND 9

ot particularly major, so hopefully this can happen soon… W On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 11:26 AM, Warren Kumari wrote: > Hi all, > > Thank you to the authors, chairs and WG for wanting to make the document > as good as it can be, even if that does require some more work. > > The ch

Re: [DNSOP] AD review of draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-21

On Fri, Mar 03, 2023 at 2:53 PM, Rob Wilton wrote: > Hi authors, WG, > > Here are my AD review comments on -21 of draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld. They > are all minor/nit comments, meaning that I'll leave it to the authors > discretion as to how they want to handle these comments. > > Minor level comme

[DNSOP] Breaking the logjam that is draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https

Hi there all, I was really hoping that it wouldn't come to this, but… We approved draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https on 2022-05-22, and has been stuck in MISREF state ever since[0], waiting on draft-ietf-tls-esni - "TLS Encrypted Client Hello" .

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   >