Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Re: New draft for consideration:

> On Mar 24, 2019, at 08:59, Matthew Pounsett wrote: > > > >> On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 at 11:46, Paul Hoffman wrote: >> >> > I'm also not too hot for conflating "user consciously changes >> > /etc/resolv.conf or equivalent" with "application makes the choice for the >> > user". >> >> The split

Re: [DNSOP] Any website publishers who use CDNs on the list?

> On Nov 2, 2018, at 17:57, Dan York wrote: > > Are there any other publishers of websites on this list who use CDNs in front > of their sites - and who are interested in the whole “CNAME at apex” issue? > > Given the ANAME discussions and other continuing “CNAME at apex” discussions, > I st

Re: [DNSOP] A conversational description of sentinel.

On 2/6/18 8:13 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On 6 Feb 2018, at 8:04, Petr Špaček wrote: > >> On 6.2.2018 13:22, Tony Finch wrote: >>> A. Schulze wrote: Yes, "kskroll-sentinel-is-ta-" is more descriptive and specific. I also prefer that longer variant. >>> >>> Yes, more friendly fo

Re: [DNSOP] adoption mechanics and disclaimers wrt dns-rpz

On 3/20/17 8:15 AM, Warren Kumari wrote: > On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 12:55 AM, Paul Vixie wrote: >> on sunday march 12, chinese.apri...@gmail.com wrote as follows: >> >>> I'd be happy to see the document proceed under two conditions: 1) it >>> becomes a WG document, subject to IETF change control,

Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption draft-vixie-dns-rpz

On 3/10/17 5:07 AM, Warren Kumari wrote: > Once a document becomes a WG document the authors are required to > incorporate WG consensus. > > If this does not / is not happening, the chairs have the option / > responsibility to replace the authors with ones that do... If there's no consensus for a

Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-wkumari-dnsop-ttl-stretching-00.txt

On 1/6/17 9:25 AM, Mukund Sivaraman wrote: > On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 01:48:59AM +, Warren Kumari wrote: >>> (2) In a feature implemented for Unbound: >>> >>> - Unbound first checks cache >>> >>> - If a stale answer is found, its TTL is set to 0, and the cache entry >>> is served >>> >>> - If

Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption draft-vixie-dns-rpz

On 12/29/16 1:51 PM, william manning wrote: > "lets standardize this 'cause everyone does it" sounds like the medical > community should have standardized on whiskey & leaches & coat hangers > because thats what everyone did. if this work does proceed, i'd like to > insist that it carry a disclai

[DNSOP] Joel Jaeggli's Yes on draft-ietf-dnsop-maintain-ds-04: (with COMMENT)

Joel Jaeggli has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dnsop-maintain-ds-04: 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] DNSSEC operational issues long term

On 11/16/16 10:44 PM, Wessels, Duane wrote: > >> On Nov 16, 2016, at 10:18 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: >> >> As a whole, nobody seems to be interested in actually coming up with a >> viable solution that actually fixes peoples problems. Everybody's just >> punting the problem elsewhere or wav

Re: [DNSOP] draft-wallstrom-dnsop-dns-delegation-requirements-03

On 11/13/16 6:16 AM, Edward Lewis wrote: > I read through the document and had a lot of comments, so maybe I need to > "back up a bit." > > I'm conflicted over documents that define good operational practices over top > of a standard protocol. There's much evidence we need this, for example, >

Re: [DNSOP] Special Use Names Summary

On 10/7/16 1:56 PM, Tim Wicinski wrote: > > Special Use Names Summary > > > First, thanks to all for a pretty useful discussion. There were a few > things uncovered which are not in either draft. It does appear that the > draft-tldr-sutld-ps is the very rough consensus choice as a starting > p

Re: [DNSOP] drop udp to stop DDOS?

On 10/1/16 8:36 AM, A. Schulze wrote: > Hello, > > a nsd user posted an interesting question: > https://open.nlnetlabs.nl/pipermail/nsd-users/2016-September/002364.html > >> Could we eliminate the DDoS threat by just turning off UDP? >> >> Recursive servers I understand probably have to keep accept

[DNSOP] Joel Jaeggli's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-maintain-ds-03: (with DISCUSS)

Joel Jaeggli has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dnsop-maintain-ds-03: Discuss 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

Re: [DNSOP] Gen-art LC review: draft-ietf-dnsop-maintain-ds-03

Hi, yeah I reached back out to robert on 8/17, I don't think there has been closure yet so the scheduled iesg discussion may be premature. joel On 8/30/16 5:24 AM, Jari Arkko wrote: > Robert — thanks for the review (again)! And thanks everyone for a document > that to me seems quite useful and

Re: [DNSOP] Gen-art LC review: draft-ietf-dnsop-maintain-ds-03

appolgies for setting this aside for a month. IETF intervened, I don't plan to advance this until the question is addressed in any event. On 7/8/16 1:32 PM, Robert Sparks wrote: > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents

Re: [DNSOP] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7706 (4755)

sure, thanks for the review. joel On 7/31/16 6:15 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > This is a good (if minor) errata. Please approve. > > --Paul Hoffman > >> On Jul 31, 2016, at 5:58 PM, RFC Errata System >> wrote: >> >> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7706, >> "Decreasing Acces

[DNSOP] Fwd: Last Call:

since this is a 4 week last call I'm more than happy for it proceed during this meeting and out the other side. thanks joel Forwarded Message Subject: Last Call: Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 02:50:08 -0700 From: DraftTracker Mail System To: iesg-secret...@ietf.org CC: tjw.i...@gmai

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-maintain-ds-03.txt

On 6/10/16 8:44 AM, Ólafur Guðmundsson wrote: > Dear colleagues > > This version addresses all comments received during the WGLC, > The main changes are clarifications requested by reviewers. > In addition some reordering was done to fit better with the model that > operations are "Introduction

[DNSOP] Fwd: Re: *[AD] Fwd: AUTH48 [LB]: RFC 7873 NOW AVAILABLE

FYI draft-ietf-dnsop-cookies now normatively includes RFC 7120 Thanks joel Forwarded Message Subject: Re: *[AD] Fwd: AUTH48 [LB]: RFC 7873 NOW AVAILABLE Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 08:25:46 -0700 From: joel jaeggli To: Lynne Bartholomew CC: RFC Editor On 5/16/16 5:00 PM

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call draft-ietf-dnsop-isp-ip6rdns

On 5/4/16 8:43 AM, Ted Lemon wrote: > Jinmei-san, with all due respect, I think that you are missing the mark > here. The point of this document is not to make normative requirements. > That's why it's informational. It's simply to enumerate the set of > options that ISPs have. The reason th

Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-song-dns-wireformat-http-03.txt

On 5/6/16 12:53 PM, Adrien de Croy wrote: > > Maybe you can explain why, if https is needed everywhere, that after > significant and extended arguing, the httpwg decided to make it optional > in http/2 > > I really don't see the point in making all those arguments again over > here in dnsop, when

Re: [DNSOP] [rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org: RFC 7788 on Home Networking Control Protocol]

On 4/24/16 3:20 PM, Suzanne Woolf wrote: > Hi, > > (no hats) > > I had honestly expected the work on the homenet naming architecture to > include a discussion of constraints on the syntax and other > characteristics of the names to be used. Personally I see that as part of the design anti-patter

Re: [DNSOP] Alternative Special-Use TLD problem statement draft

ocially visible naming. The > IETF should be seen to ask them, based on sound technical reasons, to > consider names. Not telling, asking. > > This is what I believe. This is what motivates me to discuss this > problem: Lets not pretend we can drive this on technology alone. We > can

Re: [DNSOP] Alternative Special-Use TLD problem statement draft

On 4/7/16 3:25 PM, David Conrad wrote: > Suzanne, > > On Apr 7, 2016, at 2:39 PM, Suzanne Woolf wrote: >>> On Apr 7, 2016, at 11:17 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: >>> >>> Since we have this liaison, does anyone know if it was used to inform >>> ICANN of this discussion (it seems the right thing

Re: [DNSOP] Alternative Special-Use TLD problem statement draft

On 4/7/16 2:31 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On 7 Apr 2016, at 12:17, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > >> draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem is full of FUD about how >> ICANN could be pissed off by a decision of the IETF to add .something >> to the Special-Use registry, but did we actually *asked* I

Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-01

On 4/1/16 4:53 PM, George Michaelson wrote: > Whats your reaction going to be, to a closed 6761 because if you come > to the microphone with a "but we built to the userbase, we have > millions" and make bambi eyes, I feel a bit like saying "you were > warned" > > ie, squatting a domain, is squatti

Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-liu-dnsop-dns-cache

On 3/31/16 6:18 AM, abby pan wrote: > > > Stephane Bortzmeyer mailto:bortzme...@nic.fr>>于2016 > 年3月29日周二 下午9:48写道： > > On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 05:38:01AM +, > abby pan mailto:abby...@gmail.com>> wrote > a message of 246 lines which said: > > > 1) baofeng recursive ddos att

Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-01

On 3/28/16 9:08 PM, George Michaelson wrote: > On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Andrew Sullivan > wrote: >> That's in effect an argument that the special-names registrations are not >> special. I >> do not agree with that claim. > >>From an extreme point of view (which clearly, contextually, I

Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-01

On 3/28/16 8:49 PM, David Conrad wrote: > Andrew, > > On Mar 28, 2016, at 8:36 PM, Andrew Sullivan > wrote: >> But I think you're smuggling into your argument a claim that >> they're potentially subject to the IPR and socio-economic issues >> that have been a problem in the DNS root and TLD zone

Re: [DNSOP] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-client-subnet-06: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

07 would be greatly appreciated. joel On 2/24/16 10:27 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote: > > Hi David, > > All of those changes look good to me. Happy to clear the discuss > when you post -07. > > Cheers, > S. > > On 25/02/16 01:12, Dave Lawrence wrote: >> Stephen Farrell writes: >>> Section 11.3, I

Re: [DNSOP] why classes are useless, was New Version Notification for draft-sullivan-dns-class-useless-01.txt

On 3/19/16 4:53 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 06:44:44PM -0400, Michael StJohns wrote: >> responses within the UDP sizes.The class field might have been a useful >> way to do that, especially for things related to keys and signatures. > > There are lots of things the cla

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-crocker-dns-attrleaf

On 2/29/16 3:12 PM, Warren Kumari wrote: > On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 10:40 AM Tim Wicinski > wrote: > > There was some good discussion around this draft when it first appeared, > and the initial idea by the author was to run this through the Apps area > workin

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-tcp-keepalive-06.txt

We're good, We hold the token at his point so we can push it over to the rfc editor. Thanks for the effort joel On 2/22/16 4:21 AM, Sara Dickinson wrote: > All, > > This update addresses all of the outstanding comments from the IESG review of > this document, apart from a decision on the que

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-michaelson-dnsop-rfc6761-is-closed-00.txt

On 2/22/16 4:17 PM, George Michaelson wrote: > I know it had that clause Brian. I kept the document short. I think the > clause was a sanity clause whose invokation was basically insane. We > should not have formalized a process on it, it should have been > something done on very mature considerati

Re: [DNSOP] Can I have a slot in the DNSOP WG to discuss draft-michaelson-dnsop-rfc6761-is-closed

On 2/22/16 6:21 PM, George Michaelson wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Paul Wouters > wrote: > > Face to face time is rare. It also does not include everyone that's on > the list. So where possible, discussion on the lists is always > preferred. >

Re: [DNSOP] Stephen Farrell's Yes on draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-chain-query-06: (with COMMENT)

That works for me. note, the IESG review is now completed. so we hold token on when to ship it. thanks joel On 2/18/16 6:43 AM, Paul Wouters wrote: > On Mon, 15 Feb 2016, Stephen Farrell wrote: > >> -- >> COMMENT: >> -

Re: [DNSOP] [regext] Any interest in draft-latour-dnsoperator-to-rrr-protocol ?

On 2/16/16 1:05 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: >>> I think it would fall under REGEXT once it's up? The REGEXT charter >>> has a section about DNS Operator. >>> The working group will also identify the requirements for a registration protocol where a third-party DNS provider is involved. The

Re: [DNSOP] Any interest in draft-latour-dnsoperator-to-rrr-protocol ?

On 2/16/16 7:09 AM, Jacques Latour wrote: > Hi, > > I think it would fall under REGEXT once it's up? The REGEXT charter has a > section about DNS Operator. > >> The working group will also identify the requirements for a >> registration protocol where a third-party DNS provider is involved. >> T

Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-tcp-keepalive-05

-over-TCP and _not_ also have the ability to keep their > TCP connection alive for later DNS queries over that same TLS > connection? Perhaps for both DNS-over-TLS, and DNS-over-DTLS, the > semantics of edns-tcp-keepalive are implied? that is an interesting reading. though I'd wa

Re: [DNSOP] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis-05: (with DISCUSS)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 1/7/16 11:35 AM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote: > > On 1/7/16, 2:30 PM, "Brian Haberman" > wrote: > >>> What happens now? A two week PS Last Call? (a question for >>> JoelŠ) >> >> As an AD (at least for the next 3 months), I don't think we ne

Re: [DNSOP] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis-05: (with DISCUSS)

It is intended as ps, given the changes I think advancement to IS is not warrented notwithstanding wide deployment. The duration of the last call looks to be my bad and I will have to correct that. joel On 1/6/16 8:55 AM, Mankin, Allison wrote: > Alvaro, > > The draft aims for PS, not IS. I thi

Re: [DNSOP] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-tcp-keepalive-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On 1/7/16 6:52 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote: > > Hi Sara, > > On 07/01/16 10:54, sara wrote: >> >>> On 6 Jan 2016, at 21:58, Stephen Farrell >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Hiya, Speaking for myself I don’t see this as the solution to managing DTLS sessions, I think that would be better handl

Re: [DNSOP] "anything goes" (was Re: Should we try to work on DNS over HTTP in dnsop?)

On 12/18/15 10:07 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 08:36:00PM -0800, Paul Vixie wrote: >> >> this is the new era of "anything goes" for DNS protocol development. as with >> client subnet, no >> matter how bad an idea is, if someone is already doing it, then the ietf >> docume

Re: [DNSOP] Fuel on fire: more TLD to come :-)

On 11/11/15 7:58 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > I write a draft requesting registration of each of these in the RFC > 6761 registry :-D While I might consign this to the realm of nutjobs, it seems to be the case that what they intend to describe is an entirely seperate namespace. > https://foru

[DNSOP] agenda bashing

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 paul, I would like to apologize for asking you to sit down. My interpretation of the statement was that: We do not have scope to address a charter item because it belongs at icann. We need to either address it or inform the iesg that we are

Re: [DNSOP] Draft -domain-names-01

I think the dicussion of names is useful and insightful. we can find a home for it I'm pretty sure but I'm happy to see discussion of it. joel On 11/3/15 4:39 PM, Tim WIcinski wrote: > > I spoke to Ed this morning during breakfast, and we discussed his > draft. I do like this as a well written

Re: [DNSOP] Meeting agenda

Hello, AD here. On 10/28/15 5:24 AM, yaojk wrote: > > > > >> 在 2015年10月28日，19:45，Tim Wicinski 写道： >> >> >> >> >>> On 10/28/15 7:37 AM, yaojk wrote: >>> Hello >>> >>> http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dnsop/agenda?item=agenda-94-dnsop.html >>> >>> From the agenda above, I see that it doesn't include my

Re: [DNSOP] Brian Haberman's No Record on draft-ietf-dnsop-root-loopback-04: (with COMMENT)

On 9/30/15 6:46 PM, Paul Vixie wrote: > > > John Levine wrote: >>> It should be easy enough to create a local alias address for the purpose >>> though. "ifconfig lo inet6 add ::2 alias", salt to taste. >> >> Uh, no. The *only* loopback address is ::1. The rest of ::/8 is >> reserved. > >

Re: [DNSOP] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-root-loopback-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On 9/30/15 4:08 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On 30 Sep 2015, at 15:32, Ben Campbell wrote: > >> -- >> DISCUSS: >> -- >> >> This is just a process discuss: >> >> The

Re: [DNSOP] Alissa Cooper's Yes on draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00: (with COMMENT)

On 8/31/15 1:04 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > I agree with Alvaro and Stephen's comments. In particular, to my eye > [tor-rendezvous] should be a normative reference given item #3 in Section > 2. However, it seems more important to publish this document than to > re-issue the last call to call out a

Re: [DNSOP] Barry Leiba's Abstain on draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00: (with COMMENT)

On 8/21/15 7:28 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: >> valid point, however with respect to 6761 the onion namespace >> substantially predates the existence of 6761 or the consensus documented >> there so I don't think the what if scenario is particularly helpful > > Indeed, and Stephen pointed that out to me

Re: [DNSOP] Barry Leiba's Abstain on draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00: (with COMMENT)

On 8/21/15 2:40 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: >> I'm pretty sure I'll be a yes ballot on this (after I re-read the >> draft which I've not read for quite a while). And I don't expect >> either of us to change our ballot, but that said, I hope you don't >> mind explaining your ballot a little more since I'

Re: [DNSOP] what's in .alt, was Last Call: (The .onion Special-Use Domain Name) to Proposed Standard

I think this is a useful and interesting discussion. but it's anchored in the .alt proposal which we should separate from the onion tld last call I hope. Thanks joel On 7/19/15 6:55 AM, John R Levine wrote: >> so: offering someone a chance to register that a conflict exists does >> not serve the

Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: (The .onion Special-Use Domain Name) to Proposed Standard

On 7/18/15 12:16 AM, Ted Lemon wrote: > On 07/17/2015 01:35 AM, David Conrad wrote: >> To be honest, I doubt this. It assumes folks who are developing >> these non-DNS protocols know/care about what the IETF thinks. > I suspect that more do than you think. However, what they think > about the I

Re: [DNSOP] Stability of identifiers (Was: Last Call: (The .onion Special-Use Domain Name) to Proposed Standard

On 7/17/15 7:13 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 06:17:54PM +, > Edward Lewis wrote > a message of 148 lines which said: > >> URLs are nice for giving a reference, but there's still a need to curate >> the data. In particular, what if the torproject.org name regist

Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: (The .onion Special-Use Domain Name) to Proposed Standard

On 7/16/15 9:04 AM, Richard Barnes wrote: > On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 12:44 AM, Joe Hildebrand wrote: >> On 15 Jul 2015, at 5:37, David Conrad wrote: >> >>> I try to be pragmatic. Given I do not believe that refusing to put ONION >>> in the special names registry will stop the use of .ONION, the siz

Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: (The .onion Special-Use Domain Name) to Proposed Standard

On 7/15/15 10:16 AM, Ted Lemon wrote: >> I'm agreeing with Ted in that this application is insufficient. > > Whoa there, cowboy! I didn't say it was insufficient. I proposed > changes to the text that I think would result in it better expressing > what I think was intended. I can see some exp

Re: [DNSOP] comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-03

On 7/16/15 6:44 AM, Warren Kumari wrote: > On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Andrew Sullivan > wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 01:30:03PM +0200, Warren Kumari wrote: >>> We shouldn't be figuring out how useful a WG is by the number of >>> documents published, but I don't think DNSOP is still whe

Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: (The .onion Special-Use Domain Name) to Proposed Standard

On 7/16/15 8:20 AM, Ted Lemon wrote: > On 07/15/2015 02:45 PM, Francisco Obispo wrote: >> It doesn’t feel right to me rewarding bad behavior. > I don't think it's fair to characterize this as "bad behavior." It is > completely unsurprising behaviour, as I explained in some detail in a > previous

Re: [DNSOP] RFC 2181 - a pathway forward.

On 7/10/15 9:06 AM, Suzanne Woolf wrote: > Bill, > > On Jul 10, 2015, at 9:38 AM, Olafur Gudmundsson > wrote: > >> Question: What sections of 2181 do you see the need to update? > > This seems to be the critical question to your chairs and our AD as > well. > > If I understand it correctly, yo

Re: [DNSOP] Problem with CLASS

On 7/6/15 7:25 AM, manning wrote: > I still need to catch up on the full weekends activity, but I’d like to > suggest that, like the > v4/v6 transition, it may be time to consider revisiting the DNS protocols. > Not that there would > ever be a DNS EMP, wiping our all legacy code, but perhaps a

Re: [DNSOP] Some distinctions and a request - Have some class?

On 7/3/15 7:01 AM, Warren Kumari wrote: > On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 9:43 AM, manning wrote: >> Actually, there IS an escape method already defined. We just don’t use it >> much these days. >> It’s called “class” >> >> There is no reason these alternate namespaces should sit in the IN class. >> t

Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-client-subnet-01.txt

I would think at this point that this draft would be ready to go someplace. Feview of the February discussion that led to the changes/reversion here was instructive. Thanks joel On 5/26/15 2:07 PM, Warren Kumari wrote: > This version incorporates a *large* number of comments received, and > also

Re: [DNSOP] Rejecting Practice for Theory (was Re: relax the requirement for PTR records?)

On 5/14/15 6:48 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > On May 14, 2015, at 2:52 PM, joel jaeggli wrote: >> It would be super-annoying for delegations to nameservers that do >> not exist to occur for these, because not only will there be >> trillions of them but I get to wait for

Re: [DNSOP] Post-Interim considering the 4 proposals

On 5/15/15 8:48 AM, str4d wrote: > Hugo Maxwell Connery wrote: >> Hi, > >> I believe that the grothoff and appelbaum drafts are the first >> cases of testing the mechanism for the use of the special names >> registry. I also assume that the registry was created to be used >> for more than i

Re: [DNSOP] Rejecting Practice for Theory (was Re: relax the requirement for PTR records?)

On 5/14/15 11:25 AM, Paul Vixie wrote: > > > Ted Lemon wrote: >> On May 14, 2015, at 4:15 AM, Shane Kerr wrote: >>> The main argument seems to be that because e-mail uses reverse DNS as >>> input into spam detection, it is important. The argument proceeds to >>> then say that we want every compu

Re: [DNSOP] Interim Meeting on Special Names and RFC 6761

On 4/14/15 6:52 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Apr 14, 2015, at 4:02 PM, Warren Kumari wrote: >> Seeing as Interims are supposed to be announced >=30 days in the >> future I'm guessing not the 14th of May... > > If this is a virtual interim two weeks is sufficient. I thought this _was_ > a virtual

Re: [DNSOP] Interim Meeting on Special Names and RFC 6761

On 4/8/15 7:48 PM, str4d wrote: > Tim Wicinski wrote: >> All, > >> As we announced in Dallas, we’ve decided to have a separate >> meeting on Special Names and RFC 6761 topics. We're planning on >> scheduling this the week of April 13th; with Thursday, April 16th >> as an initial choice. > > T

Re: [DNSOP] discussion for draft-appelbaum-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt

On 3/17/15 8:11 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 12:59:25PM -0400, Richard Barnes wrote: If an application does not implement tor, and is not tor aware, it _will_ do a DNS lookup. You can't really go ask the world to stop doing that. You need to deal with tha

Re: [DNSOP] revisiting outstanding dicusses for 6304bis

On 2/24/15 12:28 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 12:06:06PM -0800, Joel Jaeggli wrote: >> Should we consider recommendations with respect to treatment of logging or >> storage of queries or the extent to which such queries should be protected? >> >

Re: [DNSOP] revisiting outstanding dicusses for 6304bis

Working group, I would direct your attention to the current discuss, here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc6304bis/ballot/ Should we consider recommendations with respect to treatment of logging or storage of queries or the extent to which such queries should be protected?

Re: [DNSOP] Draft Reverse DNS in IPv6 for Internet Service Providers

On 11/5/14 12:50 PM, Paul Vixie wrote: > > >> Andrew Sullivan >> Wednesday, November 05, 2014 10:50 AM >> On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 10:19:59AM -0800, 神明達哉 wrote: >>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-reverse-mapping-considerations-06 >> ... >> ... I belie

Re: [DNSOP] Anycast and DNS questions

On 9/3/14 10:01 AM, David Conrad wrote: > Hi, > > On Sep 3, 2014, at 8:42 AM, Guangqing Deng > wrote: >> From RFC1034 section 4.1, it seems that the way used for improving >> the redundancy and resilience of DNS system is to increase DNS >> servers. I agree that for the performance of the DNS sys

Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: (Child To Parent Synchronization in DNS) to Proposed Standard

On 8/8/14 8:16 AM, The IESG wrote: > > The IESG has received a request from the Domain Name System Operations WG > (dnsop) to consider the following document: > - 'Child To Parent Synchronization in DNS' >as Proposed Standard > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and sol

Re: [DNSOP] another AS112 document question

On 5/22/14, 10:05 AM, Joe Abley wrote: > William and I have heard the suggestion that we should add 112 to > this registry. A convenient mechanism for doing so would be to add > some IANA considerations to rfc6304bis. start from first principles. the resource holder is the DNS-OARC which has a st

Re: [DNSOP] draft-bortzmeyer-dnsop-dns-privacy (was: DNS privacy : now at least two drafts)

On 5/19/14, 1:09 PM, John Heidemann wrote: > > Folks, > > I believe consensus was that dnsop needs a problem statement about DNS > privacy before we explore possible solutions. If I were to speculate on the basis of the dicussion here and in the DNSE bof the solution space involves signficant if

Re: [DNSOP] draft new charter

On 4/7/14, 9:40 AM, Edward Lewis wrote: > This charter seems to fly in the fase of the traditional IETF charter > style, wherein a WG was deemed to have a set end point. that's not entirely uncommon in ops charters. for better or worse operations (of dns, ipv6, multicast, global routing etc) does

Re: [DNSOP] draft new charter

On 4/6/14, 4:25 PM, Tim Wicinski wrote: > (catching up, and I'll jump into the middle of things) > > On 4/4/14, 4:59 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 05:39:58PM -0400, >> Suzanne Woolf wrote >> a message of 69 lines which said: >> >>> 4. Publish documents on extension

Re: [DNSOP] Changes to Charter

On 3/25/14, 8:39 AM, Tim Wicinski wrote: > > > On 3/24/14, 1:48 PM, joel jaeggli wrote: >> On 3/19/14, 12:42 PM, Tim Wicinski wrote: >>> >>> 5. Address possible minor changes or extensions to the DNS Protocol, >>> initially with a focus on the operat

Re: [DNSOP] Changes to Charter

On 3/19/14, 12:42 PM, Tim Wicinski wrote: > > Hello > > This is a conversation I've scheduled a few times and I did poor time > mangement. After some discussion we're proposing adding two items to > the DNSOP charter: > > --- > > 5. Address possible minor changes or extensions to the DNS Proto

[DNSOP] on the subject of dnse

https://twitter.com/enginonder/status/446819815106576384/photo/1 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] dnse related docs.

On 3/5/14, 9:16 AM, Carsten Strotmann wrote: > Hi, > > Joel Jaeggli writes: > >> DNSop folks, >> >> If we created a new session in the thursday evening 18:40-20:40 slot >> to accommodate expanded discussion of the Drafts discussed during DNSE >> an

[DNSOP] dnse related docs.

DNSop folks, If we created a new session in the thursday evening 18:40-20:40 slot to accommodate expanded discussion of the Drafts discussed during DNSE and deconflicted that discussion with UTA on friday morning would that be a significant imposition? it seems unlikely that more than a 1/3 of

Re: [DNSOP] additional special names Fwd: I-D Action: draft-chapin-additional-reserved-tlds-00.txt

On 3/3/14, 9:25 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Warren makes a strong argument in favor of .alt I think. yeah... anything that has the potential to result in additional leakage seems like a recipe for additional pain. > Another related aspect is that if something like onion.notreallydns.org > is used

Re: [DNSOP] meta issue: WG to discuss DNS innovation (was Re: draft-hzhwm-start-tls-for-dns-00)

On 2/16/14, 8:48 AM, Joe Abley wrote: > > We can't do anything that will cause larger responses, because EDNS > support is not widespread, and in any case the network can't reliably > deliver fragments. in the context of reflection attacks (next paragraph) more packets is perhaps not the most he

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-wkumari-dnsop-alt-tld-00.txt

On 2/12/14, 10:40 AM, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Feb 12, 2014, at 1:24 PM, Joe Abley wrote: >> I suspect that there would be fewer roadblocks involved in choosing >> an anchor ALT.ARPA than ALT, since ARPA is under the control of an >> IETF family member while the root is controlled by distant cousins.

Re: [DNSOP] additional special names Fwd: I-D Action: draft-chapin-additional-reserved-tlds-00.txt

On 2/4/14, 12:42 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 09:54:41PM +, > jonne.soini...@broadcom.com wrote > a message of 112 lines which said: > >> maybe we should consider to discuss the principles under which TLDs >> can be reserved for special use and consider a re-spi

[DNSOP] dnsop co-chair announcement.

Folks, First I'd like to thank everyone new and from the previous round of volunteers. With respect to qualified and involved candidates v6ops has many and that's really heartening to see. Suzanne Woolf has accepted the role and will be joining Tim as co-chair. Thank you Suzanne for volunteering

[DNSOP] New chair selection process.

Folks, When Stephen Morris stepped down in March we solicited volunteers for his replacement. It is likely that over the next couple of days that we will revisit that list for potential candidates as that was relatively recent. If you would like to be considered for the role dnsop chair and you

Re: [DNSOP] a change for the dnsop wg

Thank you very much Peter for your effort. I greatly appreciate your enduring involvement, in particular across the AD transition and through to the present. I hope and expect that you'll continue to keep me honest with respect to DNSOP and IETF DNS activities in general. Regards joel On 12/10/1

Re: [DNSOP] [internet-dra...@ietf.org: I-D Action: draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names-00.txt]

On 12/3/13, 9:08 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 11:00:30AM -0500, > Joe Abley wrote > a message of 20 lines which said: > >> Saying that using a non-IN class is a non-starter seems about as >> silly > > There have been an ITU project to use classes (UN instead of IN

Re: [DNSOP] DNS privacy draft

On 12/1/13, 1:06 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On Dec 1, 2013, at 12:09 PM, Stephane Bortzmeyer > wrote: > >> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 09:42:16AM -0800, Paul Hoffman >> wrote a message of 52 lines which said: >> >>> Ummm, yes, but your message (and the Introduction) made it sound >>> like the empha

Re: [DNSOP] Moving parent-child-update documents forward

On Nov 6, 2013, at 10:55 AM, Tim Wicinski wrote: > (I will speak only as myself for the moment ) > > I am in solid agreement that we need to move these documents forward. In > Berlin, we sent back Wes, Warren and Olafur to resolve their differences, > merge them (if possible) and present the

Re: [DNSOP] Discussing dnsext drafts during Vancouver Session

On Oct 21, 2013, at 9:58 AM, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Oct 21, 2013, at 12:49 PM, Tim Wicinski wrote: >> Since dnsext is no longer, Paul has contacted me about having some time to >> discuss these during the meeting in Vancouver. I felt this was an excellent >> idea since the many of the comment

[DNSOP] draft-hoffine-already-dotless

Thought the working group might be somewhat interested in: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hoffine-already-dotless/?include_text=1 in relation to: http://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/2013-2/iab-statement-dotless-domains-considered-harmful/ signature.asc Descr

Re: [DNSOP] BIG RRSETS EDNS0 and ipv6 framentation.

On 6/18/13 10:47 AM, sth...@nethelp.no wrote: Unfortunately the former are far too prevalent. It's undoubtedly too late, but unfortunately it might have been better to do the fragmentation within the UDP payload (i.e. inside DNS) somehow (c.f. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5405#section-3.2). It

[DNSOP] BIG RRSETS EDNS0 and ipv6 framentation.

I'm interested in the intersection between the requested payload size and the use of the v6 fragmentation header, 6891 I think is missing some advice to implementers that might reasonably prevent fragmented replies from being dropped and limit the degree of amplification that can be achieved wi

Re: [DNSOP] [dnsext] draft-jabley-dnsext-eui48-eui64-rrtypes as AD sponsored individual sumission...

ion, but I imagine the author has a more specifc example. I would object to the document absent a clear and convincing > description of why it is needed and what applications will use it. > > Mike > > Sent from my iPad > > On Apr 14, 2013, at 11:55, joel jaeggli wrote:

[DNSOP] fyi: draft-jabley-dnsext-eui48-eui64-rrtypes as AD sponsored individual sumission...

Original Message Subject: draft-jabley-dnsext-eui48-eui64-rrtypes as AD sponsored individual sumission... Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 08:55:52 -0700 From: joel jaeggli To: dns...@ietf.org, dns...@ietf.org CC: draft-jabley-dnsext-eui48-eui64-rrty...@tools.ietf.org

[DNSOP] please welcome the new co-chair Tim Wicinski

Folks, First off let me thank you for the enthusiasm displayed by the participants on this list, we had over a dzoen volunteers to fill the slot vacated by Stephen. I've elected at this time to invite Tim to share the dutires with Peter. I greatly appreciate all the advice I recived on what

  1   2   >