Hi Paul,
My comments below:
1) Unless a DNS request for .{in-addr,ip6}.arpa/IN/RESINFO,
or a subdomain, as described in Section 2 is sent over DNS-over-TLS
(DoT) [RFC7858] or DNS-over-HTTPS (DoH) [RFC8484], or unless the
.{in-addr,ip6}.arpa zone is signed with DNSSEC, the
response is
Moin!
On 27 Jun 2019, at 20:44, Paul Hoffman wrote:
Greetings. We have again updated draft-sah-resolver-information based
on comments from this mailing list. We think that this is ready for
adoption by the WG so that the initial use of the protocol (to be able
to determine the URI template of
At Thu, 27 Jun 2019 18:44:09 +,
Paul Hoffman wrote:
> Greetings. We have again updated draft-sah-resolver-information
> based on comments from this mailing list. We think that this is
> ready for adoption by the WG so that the initial use of the protocol
> (to be able to determine the URI tem
Greetings. We have again updated draft-sah-resolver-information based on
comments from this mailing list. We think that this is ready for adoption by
the WG so that the initial use of the protocol (to be able to determine the URI
template of the DoH server preferred by your current resolver) can
Paul Wouters writes:
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, Petr Špaček wrote:
>
>>> MB 7 a mailbox domain name (EXPERIMENTAL) [RFC1035] MG
>>> 8 a mail group member (EXPERIMENTAL) [RFC1035] MR 9 a
>>> mail rename domain name (EXPERIMENTAL) [RFC1035]
>>
>>
>> Is there any *tec
> I run authoritative servers for about 500 small domains, but I suspect
> I am not the operator you are looking for.
First, thanks everybody for reviewing the draft, lots of valuable
feedback in these comments.
Now, the first thing we need to do (as pointed by multiple reviewers) is
to define w
In article
you write:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>Do you have any authoritative server operators that have signed on to these
>recommendations other than the authors?
I run authoritative servers for about 500 small domains, but I suspect
I am not the operator you are looking for.
Perhaps a next step would be
Hey Giovane,
On 28 Nov 2018, at 04:55, Giovane Moura wrote:
> We have a new draft and we'd like to ask the WG to adopt it:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-moura-dnsop-authoritative-recommendations/
>
> This is an informational draft that presents recommendations for
> authoritative
Hello Giovane,
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 12:56 PM Giovane Moura wrote:
> This is an informational draft that presents recommendations for
> authoritative DNS operators, based on research works we have been
> conducting over the last few years.
Thank you for sharing this!
A few suggestions:
> 5.
moura> We have a new draft and we'd like to ask the WG to adopt it:
moura>
[[https://datatracker..ietf.org/doc/draft-moura-dnsop-authoritative-recommendations/]]
msj> Do you have any authoritative server operators that have signed on
msj> to these recommendations other than the authors
Hi -
Do you have any authoritative server operators that have signed on to these
recommendations other than the authors? if not, I’d suggest deferring this
as a WG document pending some buy in from a few ops that are using these
recommendations and can provide some real world context. E.g. how d
On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, Petr Špaček wrote:
MB 7 a mailbox domain name (EXPERIMENTAL) [RFC1035] MG
8 a mail group member (EXPERIMENTAL) [RFC1035] MR 9 a
mail rename domain name (EXPERIMENTAL) [RFC1035]
Is there any *technical* use for this field? Do we need it
Petr Špaček writes:
> On 13. 11. 18 7:03, Paul Wouters wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Nov 2018, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>>> we would like to ask the working group to adopt the following I-D as a
>>> WG item:
>>>
>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lhotka-dnsop-iana-class-type-yang-00
>>
>> I'll leave tha
Folks,
We have a new draft and we'd like to ask the WG to adopt it:
*
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-moura-dnsop-authoritative-recommendations/
This is an informational draft that presents recommendations for
authoritative DNS operators, based on research works we have been
conducting
On 13. 11. 18 7:03, Paul Wouters wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2018, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>> we would like to ask the working group to adopt the following I-D as a
>> WG item:
>>
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lhotka-dnsop-iana-class-type-yang-00
>
> I'll leave that call up to the chairs bit it
On Nov 14, 2018, at 12:02, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> The thing is that we want IANA to perform further updates on their own,
> and the instructions in the "IANA Considerations" section are intended
> to be one way: if the registry changes, update the module so and so. It
> would become more compli
Joe Abley writes:
> On 13 Nov 2018, at 14:07, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>
>> Paul Wouters writes:
>>
>>> On Mon, 12 Nov 2018, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>>>
we would like to ask the working group to adopt the following I-D as a
WG item:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lhotka-d
Ladislav Lhotka writes:
> Paul Wouters writes:
>
>> I am also confused by the difference between deprecated and
>> obsoleted. I guess the yang model interprets the IANA regitry, but the
>> registry has no official column designation for this. I wonder if it
>> should be given one. I also then sug
On 13 Nov 2018, at 14:07, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> Paul Wouters writes:
>
>> On Mon, 12 Nov 2018, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>>
>>> we would like to ask the working group to adopt the following I-D as a
>>> WG item:
>>>
>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lhotka-dnsop-iana-class-type-yang-00
>>
Paul Wouters writes:
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2018, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>
>> we would like to ask the working group to adopt the following I-D as a
>> WG item:
>>
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lhotka-dnsop-iana-class-type-yang-00
>
> I'll leave that call up to the chairs bit it sounds like a go
Paul Vixie wrote:
>
> it's been quite useful for internal DNSSEC for non-public zones.
Yes.
(I would like something like DLV but with slightly different semantics,
so that it is used as a fallback when the parent zone isn't reachable,
as well as when it is reachable but missing the DS records.)
Paul Wouters wrote:
On Tue, 13 Nov 2018, Mark Andrews wrote:
DLV 32769 DNSSEC Lookaside Validation
DLV isn’t obsolete. The registry ISC published is gone but anyone can
publish their own
registry.
The question is if that is a bug or feature. I think it is a bug and its
time for the code
On Tue, 13 Nov 2018, Mark Andrews wrote:
DLV 32769 DNSSEC Lookaside Validation
DLV isn’t obsolete. The registry ISC published is gone but anyone can publish
their own
registry.
The question is if that is a bug or feature. I think it is a bug and its
time for the code base to remove t
> On 13 Nov 2018, at 5:03 pm, Paul Wouters wrote:
>
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2018, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>
>> we would like to ask the working group to adopt the following I-D as a
>> WG item:
>>
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lhotka-dnsop-iana-class-type-yang-00
>
> I'll leave that call up t
On Mon, 12 Nov 2018, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
we would like to ask the working group to adopt the following I-D as a
WG item:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lhotka-dnsop-iana-class-type-yang-00
I'll leave that call up to the chairs bit it sounds like a good idea.
I have reviewed the documen
On Mon, 2018-11-12 at 12:37 +0200, Joe Abley wrote:
> Hi Ladislav,
>
> On 12 Nov 2018, at 12:31, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>
> > we would like to ask the working group to adopt the following I-D as a
> > WG item:
> >
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lhotka-dnsop-iana-class-type-yang-00
>
> I
Hi Ladislav,
On 12 Nov 2018, at 12:31, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> we would like to ask the working group to adopt the following I-D as a
> WG item:
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lhotka-dnsop-iana-class-type-yang-00
I have read this document, and I actually can't think of anything that wo
Hi,
we would like to ask the working group to adopt the following I-D as a
WG item:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lhotka-dnsop-iana-class-type-yang-00
Let me emphasize again that the adoption doesn't mean any long-term
commitment and burden for the WG: this document only provides an initial
Peter Koch wrote:
> Dear WG,
>
> we've done this twice now in face to face meetings, but let's double check on
> the list:
>
> There is a request to adopt
> "DNSSEC Trust Anchor Configuration and Maintenance" as a DNSOP WG item.
> The topic is covered by our charter.
>
> Now is the time to supp
On Mon, 3 Dec 2007, Peter Koch wrote:
> There is a request to adopt
> "DNSSEC Trust Anchor Configuration and Maintenance" as a DNSOP WG item.
> The topic is covered by our charter.
This document RECOMMENDS that a trust anchor be specified as a DS RR.
[...]
Using a DS RR is al
Dear WG,
we've done this twice now in face to face meetings, but let's double check on
the list:
There is a request to adopt
"DNSSEC Trust Anchor Configuration and Maintenance" as a DNSOP WG item.
The topic is covered by our charter.
Now is the time to support or oppose adoption as a WG item.
31 matches
Mail list logo
