Re: [homenet] homenet naming drafts "terminology"
On 6. May 2021, at 00:06, Michael Richardson wrote: > > > Ole Troan wrote: >> Is this the same as a hidden primary name server? > > That's Stealth Primary. > The DM is not a stealth primary, because it's not primary. > It hasn't got the DNSSEC signing keys, for instance. Distribution hub Distribution leader Distribution manager Distribution head Distribution director Distribution controller Distribution governor Distribution center Distribution central Grüße, Carsten ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] homenet naming drafts "terminology"
Ole Troan wrote: > Is this the same as a hidden primary name server? That's Stealth Primary. The DM is not a stealth primary, because it's not primary. It hasn't got the DNSSEC signing keys, for instance. >> On 5 May 2021, at 21:09, Michael Richardson >> wrote: >> >> Ted Lemon wrote: On May 5, 2021, at 11:51 AM, Michael Richardson wrote: 3) We would be happy to go with another term, but we don't want to invent another term. So, if the DNS anycast operator has another term, then I'd go with it. >> >>> Authority database? >> >> I thought that you were asking who was an authoritive database of >> operators. Then I understood that you are suggesting "authority >> database" as the term. >> >> Some ascii art, (so pick a sensible mono-spaced font, or use the >> archive link): >> >> .-. .-. | S P | ---> | D M |\---\--\ `-' >> `-' | | | V V V .-. .. .. | Sec | | Sec| |Sec | >> `-' `' `' >> >> S.P. = Stealth Primary Sec = Secondary D M = Distribution M* >> >> Note that the "DM" is usually not listed as an NS, but rather, two or >> more "Sec" are what is listed. >> >> So, maybe "Distribution Authority" would make us both happy. >> >> -- >> Michael Richardson . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting >> ) Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide >> ___ homenet mailing list >> homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] homenet naming drafts "terminology"
Or “Distribution Primary?” I think given this chart that “Distribution Authority” is less clear, since the real authority is the stealth primary. > On May 5, 2021, at 3:09 PM, Michael Richardson wrote: > > > Ted Lemon wrote: >> On May 5, 2021, at 11:51 AM, Michael Richardson >> wrote: >>> 3) We would be happy to go with another term, but we don't want to >>> invent another term. So, if the DNS anycast operator has another >>> term, then I'd go with it. > >> Authority database? > > I thought that you were asking who was an authoritive database of operators. > Then I understood that you are suggesting "authority database" as the term. > > Some ascii art, (so pick a sensible mono-spaced font, or use the archive > link): > > .-. .-. > | S P | ---> | D M |\---\--\ > `-' `-'| | | >V V V > .-. .. .. > | Sec | | Sec| |Sec | > `-' `' `' > > S.P. = Stealth Primary > Sec = Secondary > D M = Distribution M* > > Note that the "DM" is usually not listed as an NS, but rather, > two or more "Sec" are what is listed. > > So, maybe "Distribution Authority" would make us both happy. > > -- > Michael Richardson. o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) > Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] homenet naming drafts "terminology"
Is this the same as a hidden primary name server? Cheers Ole > On 5 May 2021, at 21:09, Michael Richardson wrote: > > > Ted Lemon wrote: >>> On May 5, 2021, at 11:51 AM, Michael Richardson >>> wrote: >>> 3) We would be happy to go with another term, but we don't want to >>> invent another term. So, if the DNS anycast operator has another >>> term, then I'd go with it. > >> Authority database? > > I thought that you were asking who was an authoritive database of operators. > Then I understood that you are suggesting "authority database" as the term. > > Some ascii art, (so pick a sensible mono-spaced font, or use the archive > link): > > .-. .-. > | S P | ---> | D M |\---\--\ > `-' `-'| | | >V V V > .-. .. .. > | Sec | | Sec| |Sec | > `-' `' `' > > S.P. = Stealth Primary > Sec = Secondary > D M = Distribution M* > > Note that the "DM" is usually not listed as an NS, but rather, > two or more "Sec" are what is listed. > > So, maybe "Distribution Authority" would make us both happy. > > -- > Michael Richardson. o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) > Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide > ___ > homenet mailing list > homenet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] [dhcwg] WGLC started -- draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options-12
Ted Lemon wrote: > On May 5, 2021, at 11:44 AM, Michael Richardson > wrote: >> The end user might suffer slightly by having locally served reverse >> names that are no longer connected: they should obsolete that zone >> when they realize that their PD hasn't been renewed, until such time, >> (if it was a flash renumber), they would be right to think that they >> legitimately control them. > In practice I don’t think this is an issue. The reverse lookup is > usually triggered by receipt of a message from an IP address, so as > long as the IP address is still in use internally, the presence of the > reverse zone is wanted. When the address changes, the old zone becomes > obsolete whether it continues to be served or not. The likelihood of > the zone being re-allocated to some other network for which the > original network will then do a reverse lookup is very small, so I > don’t think there’s any reason to be concerned about this. I agree with you completely. -- Michael Richardson. o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] homenet naming drafts "terminology"
Ted Lemon wrote: > On May 5, 2021, at 11:51 AM, Michael Richardson > wrote: >> 3) We would be happy to go with another term, but we don't want to >> invent another term. So, if the DNS anycast operator has another >> term, then I'd go with it. > Authority database? I thought that you were asking who was an authoritive database of operators. Then I understood that you are suggesting "authority database" as the term. Some ascii art, (so pick a sensible mono-spaced font, or use the archive link): .-. .-. | S P | ---> | D M |\---\--\ `-' `-'| | | V V V .-. .. .. | Sec | | Sec| |Sec | `-' `' `' S.P. = Stealth Primary Sec = Secondary D M = Distribution M* Note that the "DM" is usually not listed as an NS, but rather, two or more "Sec" are what is listed. So, maybe "Distribution Authority" would make us both happy. -- Michael Richardson. o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] homenet naming drafts "terminology"
On May 5, 2021, at 11:51 AM, Michael Richardson wrote: > 3) We would be happy to go with another term, but we don't want to invent > another term. So, if the DNS anycast operator has another term, then > I'd go with it. Authority database? RFC 8499 appears to have deprecated the term “master” to some extent, although it’s not perfect. “Master server” just says “see Primary Server.” The server on the home router really is the primary authoritative server for the zone from a DNS perspective, even if it doesn’t show up in a public NS record. FWIW I fully support using different terminology. ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] homenet naming drafts "terminology"
STARK, BARBARA H wrote: > I'm hoping not to start divisive discussion, but think it's better to > discuss inside the WG rather than wait until IETF LC. > Might the authors consider whether a word other than "Master" could be > used in the terms Distribution Master, Reverse Distribution Master, Yes, the authors discussed this at length, and we actually reached out to quite a number of people for the terminology. There were even emails on this ML, I think. 1) DM is a term used in the DNS operational community. It's not ubiquitous, but it is understood in many of the anycast DNS groups. 2) The term "stealth primary" is also used, but according to how it is used, that term would apply to the HNA, not the DM function. 3) We would be happy to go with another term, but we don't want to invent another term. So, if the DNS anycast operator has another term, then I'd go with it. > Perhaps "Primary" could be used? Or something else? Nope, because that's confusing in the DNS space. It's not a primary. -- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works|IoT architect [ ] m...@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/| ruby on rails[ signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] [dhcwg] WGLC started -- draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options-12
On May 5, 2021, at 11:44 AM, Michael Richardson wrote: > The end user might suffer slightly by having locally served > reverse names that are no longer connected: they should obsolete that zone > when they realize that their PD hasn't been renewed, until such time, > (if it was a flash renumber), they would be right to think that they > legitimately control them. In practice I don’t think this is an issue. The reverse lookup is usually triggered by receipt of a message from an IP address, so as long as the IP address is still in use internally, the presence of the reverse zone is wanted. When the address changes, the old zone becomes obsolete whether it continues to be served or not. The likelihood of the zone being re-allocated to some other network for which the original network will then do a reverse lookup is very small, so I don’t think there’s any reason to be concerned about this. ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] [dhcwg] WGLC started -- draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options-12
Bernie Volz \(volz\) wrote: > And, something to ponder: - In 5.3, is there any value in potentially > allowing a Relay Agent to supply these options to a server to > potentially return to a client via the RSOO option (RFC6422)? > I raise this question as it seems no documents have mentioned this and there > was a case that recently came up where this was useful for another > option, so just want to remind folks that it exists and to consider > whether it could be used for these options. We expect that most of the time, these options will be returned for the reverse zone at the time that a IPv6 PD is initially done. (And the rest of the time, it will be because forward zone is *also* configured by the ISP) Do Relay Agents delegated PD? Alas, no. So I can't see a use case for putting those options there. One thing that I just thought of, and I don't remember if we discussed it at all, was whether there was a need to synchonize these returned options with the IA_PD lifetimes.I think not: because if the ISP renumbers the end user (whether a flash number or controlled), then they can also just stop synchronizing the reverse zone, and that effectively kills the reverse zone content. The end user might suffer slightly by having locally served reverse names that are no longer connected: they should obsolete that zone when they realize that their PD hasn't been renewed, until such time, (if it was a flash renumber), they would be right to think that they legitimately control them. (I'm still miffed that Relay Agents have to snoof to learn PD, and nobody seems to think this a problem) -- Michael Richardson. o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] WGLC started -- draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options-12
Hi: Looking at this primarily from the DHCP perspective ... regarding https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options/, these DHCPv6 options are formatted properly (as per RFC7227 and standard practices). I just have some nits: - In 4.2, in the "option-code" description "DM Option" is used (only use). Probably best if this was replaced with "Distributed Master Option"? (Yes, DM is used in plenty of other places, but it seems odd to use it here as the "name" of the option.) Also, "TDB3" in the IANA section does not use "DM". Also, 4.3 "option-code" uses "Reverse Distributed Master Option (TBD4)". - In 4.3, the "Supported Transport" description says "DM". Should this be "RDM", as this is the Reverse Distributed Master Server Option? And, something to ponder: - In 5.3, is there any value in potentially allowing a Relay Agent to supply these options to a server to potentially return to a client via the RSOO option (RFC6422)? I raise this question as it seems no documents have mentioned this and there was a case that recently came up where this was useful for another option, so just want to remind folks that it exists and to consider whether it could be used for these options. I do plan to take a closer look at the other I-D as well, so may have additional comments thereafter. - Bernie -Original Message- From: dhcwg On Behalf Of STARK, BARBARA H Sent: Tuesday, May 4, 2021 9:56 AM To: 'homenet@ietf.org' Cc: 'dh...@ietf.org' ; 'dns-priv...@ietf.org' ; 'int-a...@ietf.org' Subject: [dhcwg] WGLC started Hi homenet, intarea, dhc, and dprive, Homenet has started WGLC for draft-ietf-homenet-front-end-naming-delegation-14 and draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options-12. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-homenet-front-end-naming-delegation/ (Simple Provisioning of Public Names for Residential Networks) https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options/ (DHCPv6 Options for Home Network Naming Authority) We're including intarea, dhc, and dprive to get a slightly wider audience for the technical aspects of these drafts (dhc is specifically asked to look at the dhc-options draft). The drafts do also need some editorial fixing-up. I'll be focusing on that so the technical experts can focus on the technical aspects. I've made the WGLCs for 3 weeks instead of the normal 2. I'm doing this because - we're reaching out to WGs that haven't seen this before and asking them for comments - there are 2 drafts - I'm on vacation next week and was getting stressed out by everything I need to get done by this Friday The meeting minutes (from the homenet April 23 interim) list intarea, dprive, and dhc as other groups to request comments from. Is this the right list? Are there others? Please let me know if I should broaden this. Thx, Barbara ___ dhcwg mailing list dh...@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
[homenet] homenet naming drafts "terminology"
I'm hoping not to start divisive discussion, but think it's better to discuss inside the WG rather than wait until IETF LC. Might the authors consider whether a word other than "Master" could be used in the terms Distribution Master, Reverse Distribution Master, Distribution/Distributed Master Option [BTW, I notice that there are several instances of the "Distributed" instead of "Distribution" in the DHC option draft], Reverse Distribution Master Option, OPTION_DIST_MASTER, OPTION_REVERSE_DIST_MASTER? Perhaps "Primary" could be used? Or something else? If anyone needs context for my comment, I'm happy to provide it. Otherwise, I'll just leave it at this request for the authors to consider this question. Thx, Barbara ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] WGLC started
Thank you very much Med for the comments! That is very useful and we will address them very soon! Yours, Daniel On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 8:33 AM wrote: > Hi all, > > FWIW, some comments to be considered by the authors as part the WGLC can > be seen at: > > * draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options: > - pdf: > https://github.com/boucadair/IETF-Drafts-Reviews/blob/master/draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options-12-rev%20Med.pdf > - doc: > https://github.com/boucadair/IETF-Drafts-Reviews/raw/master/draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options-12-rev%20Med.docx > > * draft-ietf-homenet-front-end-naming-delegation: > - pdf: > https://github.com/boucadair/IETF-Drafts-Reviews/blob/master/draft-ietf-homenet-front-end-naming-delegation-14-rev%20Med.pdf > - doc: > https://github.com/boucadair/IETF-Drafts-Reviews/raw/master/draft-ietf-homenet-front-end-naming-delegation-14-rev%20Med.docx > > > Cheers, > Med > > > -Message d'origine- > > De : dns-privacy [mailto:dns-privacy-boun...@ietf.org] De la part de > > STARK, BARBARA H > > Envoyé : mardi 4 mai 2021 15:56 > > À : 'homenet@ietf.org' > > Cc : 'dh...@ietf.org' ; 'dns-priv...@ietf.org' > priv...@ietf.org>; 'int-a...@ietf.org' > > Objet : [dns-privacy] WGLC started > > > > Hi homenet, intarea, dhc, and dprive, > > Homenet has started WGLC for draft-ietf-homenet-front-end-naming- > > delegation-14 and draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options- > > 12. > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-homenet-front-end-naming- > > delegation/ (Simple Provisioning of Public Names for Residential > > Networks) https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-homenet-naming- > > architecture-dhc-options/ (DHCPv6 Options for Home Network Naming > > Authority) > > > > We're including intarea, dhc, and dprive to get a slightly wider > > audience for the technical aspects of these drafts (dhc is > > specifically asked to look at the dhc-options draft). > > The drafts do also need some editorial fixing-up. I'll be focusing on > > that so the technical experts can focus on the technical aspects. > > > > I've made the WGLCs for 3 weeks instead of the normal 2. I'm doing > > this because > > - we're reaching out to WGs that haven't seen this before and asking > > them for comments > > - there are 2 drafts > > - I'm on vacation next week and was getting stressed out by > > everything I need to get done by this Friday > > > > The meeting minutes (from the homenet April 23 interim) list intarea, > > dprive, and dhc as other groups to request comments from. Is this the > > right list? Are there others? > > Please let me know if I should broaden this. > > Thx, > > Barbara > > > > ___ > > dns-privacy mailing list > > dns-priv...@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy > > > _ > > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations > confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc > pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez > recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler > a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages > electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, > Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou > falsifie. Merci. > > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged > information that may be protected by law; > they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and > delete this message and its attachments. > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been > modified, changed or falsified. > Thank you. > > ___ > homenet mailing list > homenet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet > -- Daniel Migault Ericsson ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] WGLC started
Hi all, FWIW, some comments to be considered by the authors as part the WGLC can be seen at: * draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options: - pdf: https://github.com/boucadair/IETF-Drafts-Reviews/blob/master/draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options-12-rev%20Med.pdf - doc: https://github.com/boucadair/IETF-Drafts-Reviews/raw/master/draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options-12-rev%20Med.docx * draft-ietf-homenet-front-end-naming-delegation: - pdf: https://github.com/boucadair/IETF-Drafts-Reviews/blob/master/draft-ietf-homenet-front-end-naming-delegation-14-rev%20Med.pdf - doc: https://github.com/boucadair/IETF-Drafts-Reviews/raw/master/draft-ietf-homenet-front-end-naming-delegation-14-rev%20Med.docx Cheers, Med > -Message d'origine- > De : dns-privacy [mailto:dns-privacy-boun...@ietf.org] De la part de > STARK, BARBARA H > Envoyé : mardi 4 mai 2021 15:56 > À : 'homenet@ietf.org' > Cc : 'dh...@ietf.org' ; 'dns-priv...@ietf.org' priv...@ietf.org>; 'int-a...@ietf.org' > Objet : [dns-privacy] WGLC started > > Hi homenet, intarea, dhc, and dprive, > Homenet has started WGLC for draft-ietf-homenet-front-end-naming- > delegation-14 and draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options- > 12. > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-homenet-front-end-naming- > delegation/ (Simple Provisioning of Public Names for Residential > Networks) https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-homenet-naming- > architecture-dhc-options/ (DHCPv6 Options for Home Network Naming > Authority) > > We're including intarea, dhc, and dprive to get a slightly wider > audience for the technical aspects of these drafts (dhc is > specifically asked to look at the dhc-options draft). > The drafts do also need some editorial fixing-up. I'll be focusing on > that so the technical experts can focus on the technical aspects. > > I've made the WGLCs for 3 weeks instead of the normal 2. I'm doing > this because > - we're reaching out to WGs that haven't seen this before and asking > them for comments > - there are 2 drafts > - I'm on vacation next week and was getting stressed out by > everything I need to get done by this Friday > > The meeting minutes (from the homenet April 23 interim) list intarea, > dprive, and dhc as other groups to request comments from. Is this the > right list? Are there others? > Please let me know if I should broaden this. > Thx, > Barbara > > ___ > dns-privacy mailing list > dns-priv...@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy _ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
