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

On 7 Apr 2016, at 3:44, Adrien de Croy wrote: > It's one thing to reserve a TLD.  It's another thing to actually use it for > something non-DNS. What about .local? paf signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ DNSOP mailing list DN

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

>> There should be no register, because they should not exist. > >This appears to assume that naming systems are only developed in the >IETF or that a naming system not developed in the IETF is not >relevant/impactful. > >I don't think this is a good assumption. To be more specific. In my opinio

[DNSOP] Example domains and following the standards (Was: Alternative Special-Use TLD problem statement draft

On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 01:44:44AM +, Adrien de Croy wrote a message of 217 lines which said: > .example > and > > example.com > example.net > example.org > > It's clear that the reservation of the second level domains is not > behaving as we intend with 6761, since I can do a resolutio

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

Hi, After a number of private discussions here in Buenos Aires I feel the need to clarify something: In keeping with the way I understood the IETF to work, no one who works at ICANN who has responded on this topic is speaking on behalf of ICANN (including me). Like everyone else at the IETF, I

[DNSOP] Formal syntax in the Special-Use domain registry (Was: Alternative Special-Use TLD problem statement draft

On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 09:51:03PM -0300, David Conrad wrote a message of 58 lines which said: > > Some people complained that it was difficult enough with RFC 6761 > > (because there is no machine-readable version of the special-use > > registry) > > Last I looked > http://www.iana.org/assig

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

Philip, On Apr 7, 2016, at 7:57 AM, Philip Homburg wrote: > However, having lived through a period where many different naming systems > where > use in parallel and seeing what benefits it brought to have to consider just > DNS, > I think a model where IETF and ICANN actively control the consis

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

On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 08:48:19PM +, Adrien de Croy wrote a message of 73 lines which said: > so therefore the DNS namespace has to be perverted. >From the discussion at the IETF plenary yesterday evening, I got the feeling that IETF 100 in Singapore will be clean of perversions :-) > A

Re: [DNSOP] Formal syntax in the Special-Use domain registry (Was: Alternative Special-Use TLD problem statement draft

On 4/7/16, 8:13 AM, "DNSOP on behalf of Stephane Bortzmeyer" wrote: >It is funny that draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem spends a lot >of time in political rants and seldom mentions this very practical >limit of RFC 6761. That was mentioned in the -00 version. The point was brought up in Y

[DNSOP] Again about refuse ANY and HINFO

I've shuffled my feet before (the "Again" in the subject) to express my dislike of the HINFO technique. This time I dove a little deeper into why I dislike the approach, motivated by something quickly said in the DNSOP meeting yesterday. If nothing else, I suggest that this not be standards track

Re: [DNSOP] Again about refuse ANY and HINFO

One point about repeated queries is that on the list of problems we have in the DNS, this probably isn't high. What would the packet rate be for such queries as opposed to the other problem queries we see? (I tend to agree with your take on this generally, Ed.) On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 10:32 AM,

Re: [DNSOP] Again about refuse ANY and HINFO

Edward Lewis wrote: > I've shuffled my feet before (the "Again" in the subject) to express my > dislike of the HINFO technique. I have implemented (and deployed into production) the pick-one option not the HINFO option. > Notably missing is - what if the QNAME does not exist ("Role of > Wildcar

[DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-nxdomain-cut-02.txt

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 of the IETF. Title : NXDOMAIN really means there is nothing underneath Authors : Stephane Bortzmeyer

Re: [DNSOP] Again about refuse ANY and HINFO

Ted Lemon wrote: > One point about repeated queries is that on the list of problems we have in > the DNS, this probably isn't high. What would the packet rate be for such > queries as opposed to the other problem queries we see? I didn't record numbers when I saw this attack, I'm afraid. One

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-nxdomain-cut-02.txt

On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 07:43:29AM -0700, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote a message of 47 lines which said: > Title : NXDOMAIN really means there is nothing underneath > Authors : Stephane Bortzmeyer > Shumon Huque > Filename

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

On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 09:35:32AM -0300, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote a message of 25 lines which said: > From the discussion at the IETF plenary yesterday evening, I got the > feeling that IETF 100 in Singapore will be clean of perversions :-) I've been told it was a bad joke, and it could be

Re: [DNSOP] Again about refuse ANY and HINFO

On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 11:43 AM, Tony Finch wrote: > If you don't give a positive answer then the traffic at the authority will > probably increase by multiple decimal orders of magnitude - each query > will be retried bu the recursive servers, and the answers won't be cached > so every query wil

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

On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 08:42:06PM +, Adrien de Croy wrote a message of 42 lines which said: > Why do DNS programmers need to care about these "special" names in > the normal domain name space? They do not _need_, RFC 6761 is full of SHOULD, the MUST are only for the DNS registries (typic

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

On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 08:40:51AM -0300, David Conrad wrote a message of 72 lines which said: > I am fairly certain the ICANN community (not ICANN the company -- > staff simply implements the policies defined by the community) will > create a clause in the next Applicant's Guide Book that say

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-maintain-ds

Read it, like it, and >3.1 ... The parent retrieves the CDS and inserts the corresponding DS RRset as >requested, I think the parent can accept the CDS and insert the DS RRset as requested or as per Parent policy. Meaning the Parent could take the signed child DNSKEY and create DS RRset based

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

> On Apr 7, 2016, at 11:17 AM, 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 Stephane, That is certainly your right to read it that way, but it is not what the authors are saying,

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

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* ICANN about it? This statement seems like FUD to

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] Alternative Special-Use TLD problem statement draft

(Will be answering a bunch of things, in no particular order) > 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 to do) and to ask > them if they wanted to com

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

Hi, I’d like it very much if we could park “some people feel institutional arrangements may be ill-suited or ambiguous” as “stipulated as an area to consider in evaluating possible solutions." I have pushed so hard for so long to have a problem statement, even though that’s not always either n

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

> On Apr 7, 2016, at 12:22 PM, Alain Durand wrote: > > >> On Apr 7, 2016, at 11:17 AM, 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 > > Stephane,

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

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 to do) and to ask >> them if they wanted to comm

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

Suzanne, On Apr 7, 2016, at 2:49 PM, Suzanne Woolf wrote: > It is a matter of scope, to say nothing of opinion, that “all names are > subject to socio-economic pressures.” > [...] > Given that discussion of “special use names” is even more likely than most to > suffer from assumptions about con

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

I wouldn't normally invoke 'the nuclear option' but the parallels with good science/bad politics are stark here. Norbert Weiner left the field and moved into biology and cybernetics because he realized his personal ethics were totally adrift in the sea of consequence of work on nuclear physics. I

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

On 4/7/16 4:19 PM, George Michaelson wrote: > I wouldn't normally invoke 'the nuclear option' but the parallels > with good science/bad politics are stark here. Norbert Weiner left the > field and moved into biology and cybernetics because he realized his > personal ethics were totally adrift in t

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

> On Apr 7, 2016, at 3:05 PM, David Conrad wrote: > > Suzanne, > > On Apr 7, 2016, at 2:49 PM, Suzanne Woolf wrote: >> It is a matter of scope, to say nothing of opinion, that “all names are >> subject to socio-economic pressures.” >> [...] >> Given that discussion of “special use names” is e

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

Hi Stephane don't worry, I didn't take it that way. For me, the concept of perversion and LGBT are entirely independent, and I think people who associate the 2 concepts need to look at their own prejudices. Regards Adrien de Croy -- Original Message -- From: "Stephane Bortzmeyer"

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

On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 4:27 PM joel jaeggli wrote: > On 4/7/16 4:19 PM, George Michaelson wrote: > > I wouldn't normally invoke 'the nuclear option' but the parallels > > with good science/bad politics are stark here. Norbert Weiner left the > > field and moved into biology and cybernetics becau

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

-- Original Message -- From: "David Conrad" To: "Philip Homburg" Cc: "dnsop@ietf.org" Sent: 8/04/2016 12:38:26 a.m. Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Alternative Special-Use TLD problem statement draft Philip, On Apr 7, 2016, at 7:57 AM, Philip Homburg wrote: However, having lived through a p

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

-- Original Message -- From: "Stephane Bortzmeyer" To: "Adrien de Croy" Cc: "Philip Homburg" ; "dnsop@ietf.org" Sent: 8/04/2016 12:35:32 a.m. Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Alternative Special-Use TLD problem statement draft On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 08:48:19PM +, Adrien de Croy wrote

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

On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 04:15:36PM -0400, Suzanne Woolf wrote a message of 32 lines which said: > To be clear— I wouldn’t argue that “all identities *are not* subject > to socio-economic pressures” any more than I’d argue that “all > identities *are* subject to socio-economic pressures”. As a

[DNSOP] chairs' agenda update: special use names in Buenos Aires

Hi, We have an agenda item for DNSOP tomorrow to further consider the work the WG has been doing on special-use names. Last year, after some challenging discussions in the WG and with support from our AD, the chairs determined that the most likely path to a strong analysis and possible solutio

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

>Just because TOR asks for .onion doesn't mean it should be given it. The TOR project has been distributing software that special cases the .onion TLD for close to a decade. If the IETF said "you're wrong, go away", what exactly do you think they would do? R's, John

Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-maintain-ds adding vs. deleting DS, and document track

>We could have written >“After observing CDS records for 15 days or 2 resigning cycles which ever is >longer, accept them and upload DS” >Is that better ? >It sets expectations I think my users (the ones who know about DNSSEC) would not be happy to hear that their entirely valid signed zone

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

-- Original Message -- From: "John Levine" To: "dnsop@ietf.org" Cc: "adr...@qbik.com" Sent: 8/04/2016 9:26:51 a.m. Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Alternative Special-Use TLD problem statement draft Just because TOR asks for .onion doesn't mean it should be given it. The TOR project has been

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

.local is another excellent example of where we ignore the specs. If we stopped sending lookups for .local names via DNS (not multicast DNS), a lot of things would break. Regards Adrien -- Original Message -- From: "Patrik Fältström" To: "Adrien de Croy" Cc: "dnsop@ietf.org" ; "D

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

Stephane, On Apr 7, 2016, at 5:48 PM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 04:15:36PM -0400, > Suzanne Woolf wrote > a message of 32 lines which said: > >> To be clear— I wouldn’t argue that “all identities *are not* subject >> to socio-economic pressures” any more than I’d argu

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

Sun's "Yellow Pages" would be a highly topical example... On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 7:04 PM, David Conrad wrote: > Stephane, > > On Apr 7, 2016, at 5:48 PM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 04:15:36PM -0400, > > Suzanne Woolf wrote > > a message of 32 lines which said: > > >

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

On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 5:34 PM Adrien de Croy wrote: > > -- Original Message -- > From: "David Conrad" > To: "Philip Homburg" > Cc: "dnsop@ietf.org" > Sent: 8/04/2016 12:38:26 a.m. > Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Alternative Special-Use TLD problem statement draft > > > Philip, > > On Apr 7, 20

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

-- Original Message -- From: "Stephane Bortzmeyer" To: "Adrien de Croy" Cc: "Philip Homburg" ; "dnsop@ietf.org" ; "Ted Lemon" Sent: 8/04/2016 3:06:43 a.m. Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Alternative Special-Use TLD problem statement draft I think we still need to answer the question about

[DNSOP] Edns opts vs qname

Warren. In both cases receiving a query with either a option or a qname encoding ids it is a indication that the IP address or the clients behind the IP address have the trust anchor configured. You may receive a option without the recursive server actually validating. As far as I can see both

[DNSOP] hostnames vs domain names vs RFC1034/1035 vs RFC2818 vs Wikipedia etc

Hi all I guess you're all aware of the issue of what constitutes a valid domain name, what characters are valid in labels etc. So forgive me for what must be me re-raising an ancient maybe long-thought-put-to-rest issue... but there's a serious problem out there. RFC1034 secion 3.5 which is

Re: [DNSOP] hostnames vs domain names vs RFC1034/1035 vs RFC2818 vs Wikipedia etc

No, you're confusing hostnames and domain names. Read Ed Lewis' draft, https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lewis-domain-names-02 On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 10:37 PM, Adrien de Croy wrote: > Hi all > > I guess you're all aware of the issue of what constitutes a valid domain > name, what characters ar

Re: [DNSOP] hostnames vs domain names vs RFC1034/1035 vs RFC2818 vs Wikipedia etc

-- Original Message -- From: "Ted Lemon" To: "Adrien de Croy" Cc: "dnsop@ietf.org" Sent: 8/04/2016 2:03:17 p.m. Subject: Re: [DNSOP] hostnames vs domain names vs RFC1034/1035 vs RFC2818 vs Wikipedia etc No, you're confusing hostnames and domain names. Read Ed Lewis' draft, https

[DNSOP] 答复: I-D Action: draft-song-dns-wireformat-http-02.txt

Thanks. By the way, BII itself has some implementations about dns-wireformat-http. You can find them there: http://www.dnsv6lab.net/project/ Runxia Wan -邮件原件- 发件人: DNSOP [mailto:dnsop-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Sara Dickinson 发送时间: 2016年4月7日 5:34 收件人: dnsop@ietf.org 主题: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action

Re: [DNSOP] hostnames vs domain names vs RFC1034/1035 vs RFC2818 vs Wikipedia etc

-- Original Message -- From: "Ted Lemon" ::= | " " ::= | "." ::= [ [ ] ] ::= |::= | "-" ::= | ::= any one of the 52 alphabetic characters A through Z in upper case and a through z in lower case ::= any one of the ten digits 0 through 9 if this was a BNF prod

Re: [DNSOP] hostnames vs domain names vs RFC1034/1035 vs RFC2818 vs Wikipedia etc

Have you read the rest of the documents? E.g.,: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2181#section-11 On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 11:21 PM, Adrien de Croy wrote: > > > -- Original Message -- > From: "Ted Lemon" > > > ::= | " " >> >> ::= | "." >> >> ::= [ [ ] ] >> >> ::= | >> >> ::

Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-maintain-ds adding vs. deleting DS, and document track

> On Apr 7, 2016, at 5:33 PM, John Levine wrote: > >> We could have written >> “After observing CDS records for 15 days or 2 resigning cycles which ever is >> longer, accept them and upload DS” >> Is that better ? >> It sets expectations > > I think my users (the ones who know about DNSSE

Re: [DNSOP] hostnames vs domain names vs RFC1034/1035 vs RFC2818 vs Wikipedia etc

yeah, paragraph 2 of that section is what I quoted as at odds with 1034/1035. I've been reading this stuff all day Looks like 1034/1035 should be obsoleted. Thankfully not many people nowadays need to write DNS resolvers. Adrien -- Original Message -- From: "Ted Lemon" To: "Adri

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-maintain-ds

Thanks Bob fixed in my repo Olafur > On Apr 5, 2016, at 9:42 AM, Bob Harold wrote: > > > On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 11:25 PM, Ólafur Guðmundsson > wrote: > > Dear colleagues, > a new version of the document has been posted that fixes few minor > grammatical and sp

Re: [DNSOP] hostnames vs domain names vs RFC1034/1035 vs RFC2818 vs Wikipedia etc

The document I mentioned updates RFC 1034. That's how we do things in the IETF! On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 11:29 PM, Adrien de Croy wrote: > yeah, paragraph 2 of that section is what I quoted as at odds with > 1034/1035. > > I've been reading this stuff all day > > Looks like 1034/1035 should

Re: [DNSOP] hostnames vs domain names vs RFC1034/1035 vs RFC2818 vs Wikipedia etc

I've seen a lot of RFCs marked as obsoleted. When you see updated by about 20 more RFCs, and you start to click through them, and see mostly they relate to DNSSEC etc, it can be a bit of an impediment. maybe an errata would be more visible for this kind of issue. thanks for your patience!

Re: [DNSOP] hostnames vs domain names vs RFC1034/1035 vs RFC2818 vs Wikipedia etc

No worries. FYI, errata don't actually update documents, so they're not the right solution. The thing about 1034/1035 is that they are very readable, and a good place to start. Think of it as being like Talmudic commentary (or TIbetan Buddhist, for that matter)--you just have to read all the

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-maintain-ds

> On Apr 7, 2016, at 11:40 AM, Jacques Latour wrote: > > Read it, like it, and > > >3.1 ... The parent retrieves the CDS and inserts the corresponding DS RRset > >as requested, > > I think the parent can accept the CDS and insert the DS RRset as requested or > as per Parent policy. > > Mea

Re: [DNSOP] hostnames vs domain names vs RFC1034/1035 vs RFC2818 vs Wikipedia etc

IDN is because there isn't a character set for the non-ascii domain names and because some hostname lookup libraries validate their inputs. rfc952 as modified by rfc1123 define hostnames. hostnames are a subset of domain names. Both fold the case of ascii letters. The DNS is supposed to be cas

Re: [DNSOP] hostnames vs domain names vs RFC1034/1035 vs RFC2818 vs Wikipedia etc

Whenever I see a "errata exist" I click through anyway. I guess if we consider that the BNF production in RFC1034/1035 is for hostname not domain name we run into the next problem which is that if we ever have a domain name that doesn't also comply with the rules for hostname, we can't in

Re: [DNSOP] hostnames vs domain names vs RFC1034/1035 vs RFC2818 vs Wikipedia etc

Additionally the rules have not changed. "preferred syntax" means just that "preferred syntax". It is not "required syntax". It was guidance for what is likely to be usable. Underscore also turned out to be usable especially as a way to differentiate hostnames from other types of names that ar

Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-maintain-ds adding vs. deleting DS, and document track

John, does the challenge mode addresses your concerns? i.e. parent gives the “uncool” operator something to insert into the zone to prove they can change the zone. Sure. Anything that's straightforward to automate is fine. Regards, John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansbu

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

Just because TOR asks for .onion doesn't mean it should be given it. The TOR project has been distributing software that special cases the .onion TLD for close to a decade. If the IETF said "you're wrong, go away", what exactly do you think they would do? Who knows. Here's a hint: They will