Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-generalized-notify-07: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Plea
On Mar 3, 2025, at 04:53, Kazunori Fujiwara wrote:
>
> Dear dnsop WG,
>
> Willem Toorop and I submitted new draft: Clarifications to the DNS Ranking
> Data
> (draft-fujiwara-dnsop-ranking-data-00.txt).
>
> Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fujiwara-dnsop-ranking-data/
> URL: https
There is a difference between taking a single vantage point (or a small set
of vantage) and looking at the behaviour of a resolution of a large domain set,
and taking a very large set of vantage points and looking at the behaviours
of resolution of a small set of domains that exhibit particular pr
Hi Ralph,
On 04/03/2025 17:35, Ralf Weber wrote:
Moin!
On 4 Mar 2025, at 15:38, Yorgos Thessalonikefs wrote:
With that I would like to comment on:
- DNS message size; I don't think we can/should limit that at all. This
will kill the inovation part and/or PQC,
Can you explain how you want
Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-generalized-notify-07: Discuss
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please refer t
Hi Peter,
Thank you very much for this thorough review!
On 3/3/25 18:21, Peter van Dijk via Datatracker wrote:
While the draft is called "generalized", 1.1 immediately dives into the
parent/child synchronisation angle. I don't want to tell you to rework the
document at this stage, but it seems
Dear dnsop,
We submitted a new version of the "dry-run DNSSEC" draft.
This update addresses the following:
- Explicit section for fallback behavior (when dry-run DNSSEC fails)
- Detailed section for NOERROR reports
- Added more security considerations about error reporting itself and
resolver/v
All,
We have prepared a draft agenda for the two sessions at IETF 122. Due
to the large number of presentation requests, we had to make some
decisions regarding time allocation.
Draft Agenda: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/agenda-122-dnsop/
We prioritised the agenda as follows:
1. Curren
Coming late to this, sorry.
I am looking for a mechanism that allows a user to easily attach IoT
devices to a DNS persona that is assigned to them. This is an extension of
my work on DNS handles.
So I am very interested in a better means of updating DNS records than TSIG
because symmetric keys ar
On Monday, 3 March 2025 10:53:40 CET Kazunori Fujiwara wrote:
> Dear dnsop WG,
>
> Willem Toorop and I submitted new draft: Clarifications to the DNS Ranking
> Data (draft-fujiwara-dnsop-ranking-data-00.txt).
>
> Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fujiwara-dnsop-ranking-data/
> URL:
>
Dear colleagues,
After several discussions in f2f meetings and on the list, we’ve decided to
adopt draft-momoka-dnsop-3901bis for DNSOP, with a few caveats.
Several weeks ago, the chairs put out a Call for Adoption for this draft. We
hadn’t reported back on that because we had some discussion
Just noticed, the linked RFC on DNS Terminology in Section 2 is 8499, not
9499.
Additionally, with the context of public resolvers and other such
intermediaries: how is RPZ / DNSBL going to be handled? Local ISPs have been
subject to this by law for quite some time now, in a variety of jurisdic
Kazunori Fujiwara wrote:
> Dear dnsop WG,
>
> Willem Toorop and I submitted new draft: Clarifications to the DNS Ranking
> Data
> (draft-fujiwara-dnsop-ranking-data-00.txt).
>
> Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fujiwara-dnsop-ranking-data/
> URL: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/dra
> the deployment of IPv6 has changed significantly in that time
But the behaviour of IPv6 when used as the transport for DNS over UDP has
not
The draft notes that IP fragmentation has reported to be fragile, large DNS
payload sizes should be avoided and TCP fall-back should be used in its
place.
The IESG has received a request from the Domain Name System Operations WG
(dnsop) to consider the following document: - 'DNSSEC Cryptographic Algorithm
Recommendation Update Process'
as Proposed Standard
*** The IETF Last Call period is extended until the 16th of March
as the intended status h
You do know that SIG(0) has existed for 20 years to authenticate UPDATE requests?-- Mark AndrewsOn 6 Mar 2025, at 07:08, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:Coming late to this, sorry.I am looking for a mechanism that allows a user to easily attach IoT devices to a DNS persona that is assigned to them. Th
Hey dnsop chairs,
Thank you for sharing.
Question: "The impact of MTU-Blackholes on DNS Recursion" links to the WG's
documents but I don't see anything there or under Tobias' profile that looks
like the title. I assume there's a missing link here, possibly to a
non-Datatracker source?
Thanks,
To
Geoff,
On Wed, 2025-03-05 at 23:17 +, Geoff Huston wrote:
>
> Personally, I ascribe to this latter interpretation of a BCP
> document, and accordingly I think it premature for this working group
> to implicitly advocate an operational configuration for DNS resolvers
> that today (i.e. "curren
18 matches
Mail list logo
