Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: Survey of Domain Verification Techniques using DNS
On 7/12/22 10:50 AM, John R. Levine wrote: That ship sailed a long time ago with the failure of the SPF record. People use TXT records for one-off things and they're not going to stop. What John said. I agree that the list of implementations should be deleted or summarized in an appendix. Well, maybe. The "Let's Encrypt" example is actually part of the acme spec (RFC 8555) and is an IETF product. Melinda -- Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@nomountain.net Software longa, hardware brevis ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Fun with draft-pwouters-powerbind
Hi, there: Here's a supporting voice from transparency-land (I co-chair the trans working group). DNSSEC was the first application outside the PKI for which there was interest in developing a CT-like auditable log, but some obvious questions about scope and scalability have stalled the work. This is a tidy approach that provides a basis for moving forward, and I'd be very happy indeed to see it adopted by dnsop. Melinda -- Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.com Software longa, hardware brevis ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] [hrpc] [Doh] Proposal for a side-meeting on services centralization at IETF 104 Prague
On 3/11/19 9:13 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > I admit I'm not sure that Secdispatch is so important here. The > subject of the side meeting is not security-specific. It also conflicts with irtfopen, which may impact the availability of pearg people, hrpc folk, etc. Melinda -- Software longa, hardware brevis PGP key fingerprint 4F68 2D93 2A17 96F8 20F2 34C0 DFB8 9172 9A76 DB8F ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] [Din] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-mayrhofer-did-dns-01.txt
On 2/15/19 9:46 AM, Paul Wouters wrote: > This technically also allows one to separate the two DNS zones more > clearly (and could even be managed by a different group) > > I'm really on the fence for this document. On the one hand, it is good > to have a memorable decentralized identifier, but on the other hand if > you rely on DNS (and DNSSEC), is this identifier really still > decentralised in the "we don't trust the USG or Verisign" way ? I think the question of whether or not to provide decentralized identifiers and whether or not this proposal delivers on the "decentralized" claim is out of our hands, as the core spec (which has a lot of additional problems) comes out of the W3C. I think the IETF's involvement is probably limited to their use of DNS in the resolution process. Melinda p.s. and it's probably worth pointing out that this work is being done in a W3C community group, so until it looks like it's actually going to be published as a WC3 spec I'm not sure I'd like to see IETF working group resources being spent on this. -- Software longa, hardware brevis PGP key fingerprint 4F68 2D93 2A17 96F8 20F2 34C0 DFB8 9172 9A76 DB8F ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] DINRG update
On 11/14/17 5:13 PM, Dave Lawrence wrote: > Given that the Thursday dnsop slot from 15:50-17:50 has been > cancelled, is there interest in having another get-together then? That's still scheduled against both nwcrg and acme, so it's not a great time. The core issue that led to us canceling the session was that many of the people doing active work in this space (and naming is by no means the only infrastructure problem, here) were unable to travel to Singapore. We have loose plans to have an interim at NDSS and then to meet again in London, People doing work in this area should definitely join the dinrg mailing list, and let us know what you're working on and if you'd like to present that work at an upcoming session. Melinda signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] DINRG update
On 11/13/17 8:17 AM, Ted Lemon wrote: > This is showing up on the agenda as canceled. Yes, this is an informal side meeting - the actual session is canceled. Melinda signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
[DNSOP] DINRG update
With regrets to the fine folks of dnsop, we've scheduled the dinrg side meeting from 9:30 - 12:00 this morning. We realize that there are many people in the dns community who are interested in decentralized approaches to naming but scheduling during this meeting has been exceptionally difficult. We'll try to make sure to avoid dnsop (and other dns working group) conflicts in the future. Melinda signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Agenda for IETF100
On 11/10/17 8:16 PM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > Any news on that? The monday session collides with DIN which is really > unfortunate for me because they talk a lot about name resolution > (Namecoin, Ethereum Name Service). I may face a hard choice. We've had to cancel the dinrg session on Monday, although we may have a small side meeting in that time slot, or another time. Melinda signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] adoption mechanics and disclaimers wrt dns-rpz
On 3/20/17 7:15 AM, Warren Kumari wrote: > It appears that this may have been a process violation here - RFC5378 > Section 3.3. Right to Produce Derivative Works seems to say that the > IETF needs change control before a WG can formally adopt a document. I > believe that we missed the fact that this included "non-standard" > copyright boilerplate. > > I / we are still investigating, and would appreciate it if the WG > gives us some time to figure this out. I was (and am) quite astonished that the working group would adopt this as a working group deliverable under the circumstances. Melinda signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption draft-vixie-dns-rpz
On 3/13/17 7:07 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > Why "after" and not "during"? That is, if the WG document tells how this > one method of achieving a set of goals works, why not also document > other options that could have, and might in the future, be adopted? That > would certainly give the reader more context. I have to say that I find it a little odd that a document constrained to describing current practice or a currently deployed protocol would be adopted by a working group - usually I'd expect that to be an individual submission. The benefits brought by going through the working group process and developing a working group consensus about the document seem pretty limited in that context. What were the authors hoping to get out of going through the working group process? Melinda signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Meeting agenda
On 10/28/15 4:24 AM, yaojk wrote: It might be your power as chairman. But I think that your arguments to block the draft discussion is not reasonable. If I may take some liberty here ... discussion of the draft is not blocked. Indeed, the primary place for working group discussions to take place is on the mailing list. This is not a minor point. Melinda ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
