Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-jabley-dnsop-refuse-any-01.txt

2015-10-13 Thread Bob Harold
> >> A new version of I-D, draft-jabley-dnsop-refuse-any-01.txt >> has been successfully submitted by Joe Abley and posted to the >> IETF repository. >> >> Name: draft-jabley-dnsop-refuse-any >> Revision: 01 >> Title: Providing Minimal-Sized Responses to DNS Queries with >>

Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-jabley-dnsop-refuse-any-01.txt

2015-10-13 Thread Paul Vixie
Bob Harold wrote: > > ... > > Section 4 includes: > "1. A DNS responder may choose to search for an owner name that > matches the QNAME and, if that name owns multiple RRs, return just one > of them." > > I think "RRs" should be "RRSets", as in section 5. strong +1. -- Paul Vixie ___

Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-jabley-dnsop-refuse-any-01.txt

2015-10-13 Thread Joe Abley
On 13 Oct 2015, at 13:30, Bob Harold wrote: > In general, the draft looks good to me. Minor changes suggested: > > Section 4 includes: > "1. A DNS responder may choose to search for an owner name that matches > the QNAME and, if that name owns multiple RRs, return just one of them." > > I thin

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-qname-minimisation-07.txt

2015-10-13 Thread Bob Harold
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 3:13 AM, wrote: > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations Working > Group of the IETF. > > Title : DNS query name minimisation to improve privacy

Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-jabley-dnsop-refuse-any-01.txt

2015-10-13 Thread Evan Hunt
Hi Joe, I think you need some more text in the description of pick-one-rrset, something like: A DNS responder which receives an ANY query MAY decline to provide a complete response, and MAY instead choose to return only one of the the RRsets present at the node specified in QNAME, and the

[DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-fanf-dnsop-rfc2317bis-00.txt (fwd)

2015-10-13 Thread Tony Finch
This butchering of RFC 2317 is in response to a couple of things: Firstly, Petr Spacek's important observation that some reverse DNS UPDATE agents are not compatible with RFC 2317. There was some discussion about whether Petr's draft imposed the wrong requirements on too many UPDATE clients, espec

Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-fanf-dnsop-rfc2317bis-00.txt (fwd)

2015-10-13 Thread Bob Harold
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 3:21 PM, Tony Finch wrote: > This butchering of RFC 2317 is in response to a couple of things: > > Firstly, Petr Spacek's important observation that some reverse DNS UPDATE > agents are not compatible with RFC 2317. There was some discussion about > whether Petr's draft im

Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-jabley-dnsop-refuse-any-01.txt

2015-10-13 Thread Evan Hunt
Belated thought: In the text about synthesized responses, I think you should specifically mention that if the responder would normally have returned a delegation, a CNAME, a DNAME, or an NXDOMAIN, then it MUST still do so. That's implied by the final paragraph of section 5, but IMHO it ought to b

Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-jabley-dnsop-refuse-any-01.txt

2015-10-13 Thread Ólafur Guðmundsson
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 7:28 PM, Evan Hunt wrote: > Hi Joe, > > I think you need some more text in the description of pick-one-rrset, > something like: > > > A DNS responder which receives an ANY query MAY decline to provide > a complete response, and MAY instead choose to return only one of

Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-fanf-dnsop-rfc2317bis-00.txt (fwd)

2015-10-13 Thread Tony Finch
Bob Harold wrote: > Thanks for reading the draft! > When I first read the last paragraph of section 8, I was confused by > "delegate the reverse DNS as usual" so I am hoping that it can be reworded > somehow. Yes, I can see that might be confusing. I think I meant any kind of delegation, at oct

Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-jabley-dnsop-refuse-any-01.txt

2015-10-13 Thread Evan Hunt
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 10:10:39PM +0100, Ólafur Guðmundsson wrote: > Having DNAME and NS below a zone apex is non-sensical as both are > "delegation records" i.e. > NS says where to find more specific name, > DNAME how to write a more specific name to another name. It's legal, though. > NS and D

Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-fanf-dnsop-rfc2317bis-00.txt (fwd)

2015-10-13 Thread Niall O'Reilly
On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 22:20:50 +0100, Tony Finch wrote: > > The first-last convention has the minor advantage of accommodating > non-CIDR delegations or perversely-fragmented CIDR ones such as /26, 2x/26, /26, with a single organization responsible for the middle pair of /26, and otherwise no

Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-fanf-dnsop-rfc2317bis-00.txt (fwd)

2015-10-13 Thread Paul Vixie
Niall O'Reilly wrote: > On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 22:20:50 +0100, > Tony Finch wrote: >> The first-last convention has the minor advantage of accommodating >> non-CIDR delegations > > or perversely-fragmented CIDR ones such as /26, 2x/26, /26, with > a single organization responsible for the middle

Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-fanf-dnsop-rfc2317bis-00.txt (fwd)

2015-10-13 Thread Mark Andrews
In message , "Niall O'Reilly" writes: > On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 22:20:50 +0100, > Tony Finch wrote: > > > > The first-last convention has the minor advantage of accommodating > > non-CIDR delegations > > or perversely-fragmented CIDR ones such as /26, 2x/26, /26, with > a single organization res

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-qname-minimisation-07.txt

2015-10-13 Thread Stephane Bortzmeyer
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 02:08:50PM -0400, Bob Harold wrote a message of 163 lines which said: > Minor suggestions for section 8, which reads: Committed but do note the draft is currently at the IESG <