On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Mark Delany wrote:
> On 15Feb15, Paul Hoffman allegedly wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Feb 15, 2015, at 4:49 AM, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
>> >
>> > The WG adopted this document some time ago (the announcement to the list
>> > is dated Nov. 14, 2014).
>>
>> Yep, and the authors
On 15Feb15, Paul Hoffman allegedly wrote:
>
>
> On Feb 15, 2015, at 4:49 AM, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
> >
> > The WG adopted this document some time ago (the announcement to the list is
> > dated Nov. 14, 2014).
>
> Yep, and the authors turned in an WG-named draft:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html
On Feb 15, 2015, at 4:49 AM, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
>
> The WG adopted this document some time ago (the announcement to the list is
> dated Nov. 14, 2014).
Yep, and the authors turned in an WG-named draft:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-client-subnet-00
> It now needs revie
The WG adopted this document some time ago (the announcement to the list is
dated Nov. 14, 2014).
It now needs reviewers to review and authors to revise.
If you agreed to review it earlier, or even if you didn't but you're
interested, please do.
Authors, any feedback on the reviews/comments
On 2/13/15, 9:05 AM, "Livingood, Jason"
mailto:jason_living...@cable.comcast.com>>
wrote:
we've got running code in bind. and no doubt other product.
Should be also in Nominet’s resolver.
BTW, I meant NomiNUM not NomiNET. Darned Nomi* names. ;-)
JL
_
Thinking more about this I figure out some things.
First, the resolver query needs to include ECS and can't be a regular
query, that's need to verify end to end ECS support, but I think it's not a
big problem. I think we need a official way to detect if authoritative has
support or not and it need
My dayjob supports this as well and has been running resolvers with similar
functionality implemented for a while now. We are looking to switch to
edns-clent-subnet once it is standardized and have been approached by
parties willing to invest in development.
Peter
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 1:51 A
I support adoption of this document because we're using this spec on our
authority name servers and planning to use it on our recursive resolvers.
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 11:50 PM, Suzanne Woolf
wrote:
> Dear DNSOP WG,
>
> This draft documents the specification, use, and cautions regarding the
>
Fair point. IMO whitelisting is a common tactic used early on in deployment of
new stuff to help manage deployment risk. It was also used in early IPv6 days
where query access to RRs was whitelisted (see
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6589). I suspect it would be similar here; that
the need
On 2/12/15, 2:54 PM, "George Michaelson"
mailto:g...@algebras.org>> wrote:
we've got two agencies who do DNS, and probably have > 20% worldwide eyeball
share in DNS (I don't know, thats a guesstimate) now doing edns0_client_subnet
albiet with whitelist, so its a permit-list, but its functionall
On 2/12/15, 2:51 PM, "Mark Delany" wrote:
>Tap tap tap. Is this thing turned on?
>
>I think 3-4 people made some well-considered feedback on this draft, but
>there has been zero discussion or author feedback for some six weeks now.
>
>Does that mean there is insufficient interest in progressing t
The question about whitelist is the problem. I think it need to be
addressed on this doc.
There's some approaches, like Google does, doing low rate ECS query:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/public-dns-announce/67oxFjSLeUM
Or something not so traditional like TXT record on domain record o
On 12Feb15, George Michaelson allegedly wrote:
>
> we've got two agencies who do DNS, and probably have > 20% worldwide
> eyeball share in DNS (I don't know, thats a guesstimate) now doing
> edns0_client_subnet albiet with whitelist, so its a permit-list, but its
> functionally 'there'
Whitelists
we've got two agencies who do DNS, and probably have > 20% worldwide
eyeball share in DNS (I don't know, thats a guesstimate) now doing
edns0_client_subnet albiet with whitelist, so its a permit-list, but its
functionally 'there'
we've got running code in bind. and no doubt other product.
wouldn'
On 24Dec14, Mark Delany allegedly wrote:
> > The draft is available here:
> > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-vandergaast-dnsop-edns-client-subnet/
>
> a) 6.2 - Intent of SCOPE NETMASK
>
> "In both cases, the value of the SCOPE NETMASK in the reply has strong
> implications with regard
> The draft is available here:
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-vandergaast-dnsop-edns-client-subnet/
a) 6.2 - Intent of SCOPE NETMASK
"In both cases, the value of the SCOPE NETMASK in the reply has strong
implications with regard to how the reply will be cached"
I wonder whether SCO
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
> Colleagues,
>
> This call for adoption closed earlier this week, during IETF91.
>
> We see significant support in the WG for working on
> draft-vandergaast-dnsop-edns-client-subnet. We're adopting it as a WG item.
>
> Thanks to the authors
Colleagues,
This call for adoption closed earlier this week, during IETF91.
We see significant support in the WG for working on
draft-vandergaast-dnsop-edns-client-subnet. We're adopting it as a WG item.
Thanks to the authors for reviving it, please resubmit with any changes you
have pending
I support adoption because operators are using this spec. I plan to review
and also to encourage a few others who have reviews to contribute.
On 28 October 2014 08:50, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
> Dear DNSOP WG,
>
> This draft documents the specification, use, and cautions regarding the
> "client-sub
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
This draft documents the specification, use, and cautions regarding the
"client-subnet" EDNS option. Please consider adoption of this draft as a WG
work item.
I have a recollection we already did this call? Because I said I
reluctantly agreed to adop
Warren Kumari:
> We actually have some updates that unfortunately didn't *quite* make
> it in before the cutoff[0].
>
> [0]: Yes, making it in before the cut-off or not making it in before
> the cut-off is a binary, but, well
Please feel free to hurl suitably non-lethal objects at me. It was
suzworldwide> The draft is available here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-vandergaast-dnsop-edns-client-subnet/
suzworldwide> Please review to see if you think this document is
suzworldwide> suitable for adoption by DNSOP and comment to the list.
I support this draft as a working group i
I support the adoption of this document in the WG even if it gets significantly
changed during the WG discussion. I will review it as it progresses.
--Paul Hoffman
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 11:50 AM, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
> Dear DNSOP WG,
>
> This draft documents the specification, use, and cautions regarding the
> "client-subnet" EDNS option. Please consider adoption of this draft as a WG
> work item.
>
> As some of you will remember, this is a successor to
Dear DNSOP WG,
This draft documents the specification, use, and cautions regarding the
"client-subnet" EDNS option. Please consider adoption of this draft as a WG
work item.
As some of you will remember, this is a successor to a draft that was
considered in DNSEXT some time ago and eventually
25 matches
Mail list logo
