Re: [DNSOP] draft-wkumari-dnsop-alt-tld-04

On Feb 12, 2015, at 1:44 AM, George Michaelson wrote: > Technology wise, this is short, and simple and clear. Would we had this > before .onion eventuated, and dare I say it even .local from another time and > place. WIring a TLD to be used for alternate namespaces so that we can safely > ancho

Re: [DNSOP] call for adoption: draft-vandergaast-dnsop-edns-client-subnet

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

Re: [DNSOP] call for adoption: draft-vandergaast-dnsop-edns-client-subnet

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

Re: [DNSOP] draft-wkumari-dnsop-alt-tld-04

I had imagined, in that simpler time, that users never saw alt, but imported other-name-space calls mapping into gethostbyname() acquired .alt unless an override was present. Ie, it was a more formal label of inclusion of a non-DNS namespace so the alt label was in-system, not visible in the other

Re: [DNSOP] call for adoption: draft-vandergaast-dnsop-edns-client-subnet

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

Re: [DNSOP] call for adoption: draft-vandergaast-dnsop-edns-client-subnet

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

Re: [DNSOP] call for adoption: draft-vandergaast-dnsop-edns-client-subnet

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

Re: [DNSOP] call for adoption: draft-vandergaast-dnsop-edns-client-subnet

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 >

Re: [DNSOP] draft-wkumari-dnsop-alt-tld-04

George, > The politics response is really simple: "this idea is doomed." -I wish I felt > otherwise, but I think given the context of the debate over ICANN, who 'owns' > names, $180,000 application fees, IAB directions to IANA, NTIA role, this is > mired. I don't want to be a prophet of doom,

Re: [DNSOP] draft-wkumari-dnsop-alt-tld-04

There is no downside to being a Jeremiah, because being proved wrong makes the world a better place than I fear. If you can give some positive indications that a well formed IAB request for delegation gets a smooth path, then I'm all in favour. Equally, if that can be done, then .LOCAL can be don

Re: [DNSOP] draft-wkumari-dnsop-alt-tld-04

> David Conrad > Thursday, February 12, 2015 5:38 PM > George, > >> The politics response is really simple: "this idea is doomed." -I wish I >> felt otherwise, but I think given the context of the debate over ICANN, who >> 'owns' names, $180,000 application fees, I

Re: [DNSOP] draft-wkumari-dnsop-alt-tld-04

Yes, this is not simply a protocol-related matter. Which is why the IAB wrote to the ICANN board alerting them to the issue, and the ICANN board passed this on to the community, specifically inviting interested community members to join this list. Some of us did so. If those of us active in the

Re: [DNSOP] draft-wkumari-dnsop-alt-tld-04

how about if the rules of sub-delegation under ALT are that 1) you only get an OID 2) the OID has to be registered with IANA in the normal way 3) the OID registry identifies the external namespace, which is being bound into the system. Then, it becomes clear this is a mapping space for functions l