[DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any-01.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 : Providing Minimal-Sized Responses to DNS Queries with QTYPE=ANY Authors : Joe Abley

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

OK, if we look at those 1 at a time. RFC1918 defines private IP address ranges. Stating that a reverse lookup for a private IP should never be encoded onto a DNS packet and sent to a DNS server flies in the face of practice, and there are many many useful scenarios where this is done. I

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

Adrien, > I think we still need to answer the question about whether DNS namespace > should be polluted for non-DNS resolution. I believe your question is wrong. The "DNS namespace" can't be polluted for non-DNS resolution because the DNS namespace is, by definition, only comprised of names

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

>> Also, it would make very difficult to DNS programmers to keep track of >> all these "special but not special" domain names. > > Personally, I consider naming systems developed outside the IETF a problem. > > There should be no register, because they should not exist. This appears to assume

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

Hi, > 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/assignments/special-use-domain-names/special-use-domain-names.xml was XML and it's machine-readable. > but

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

-- Original Message -- From: "Stephane Bortzmeyer" To: "Ted Lemon" Cc: "dnsop@ietf.org" Sent: 7/04/2016 4:53:31 a.m. Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Alternative Special-Use TLD problem statement draft 4.1.2. Does Every Domain Name

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

-- Original Message -- From: "Philip Homburg" To: "dnsop@ietf.org" Sent: 7/04/2016 3:05:26 a.m. Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Alternative Special-Use TLD problem statement draft In your letter dated Wed, 6 Apr 2016 09:21:31 -0300 you wrote: Strong

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

On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 5:43 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > actions that might be taken, including the 6761 registry. I think I did > that in the "Domain Name Purity" > That was supposed to be "closing the 6761 registry," in case it wasn't obvious.

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

When I wrote the problem statement I tried to do my best to document the implications of various actions that might be taken, including the 6761 registry. I think I did that in the "Domain Name Purity" section. Closing that registry is certainly something the IETF could do. However, there are

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

Why do DNS programmers need to care about these "special" names in the normal domain name space? The question is what protocol to use. I think we still need to answer the question about whether DNS namespace should be polluted for non-DNS resolution. -- Original Message -- From:

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

As author of a brief, but pointedly direct draft which proposes closing RFC6761, It should be understood that I do really, believe we should close RFC6761. But I'm not blind to the pressures which make people want to "fix things" and in that sense its sensible to discuss the problem, and define a

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

it wasn't my intention to ignore the socio-legal issue, but the problem statement also can't presume a solution. I will think about this and try to come up with better text. thanks for the feedback, both of you. On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 5:16 PM, George Michaelson wrote: > On

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

On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Alain Durand wrote: > Reading section 4.2 and 4.3 of draft-tldr-sutld-ps-00, it would appear you > are in the camp that does believe those “special names” are immune those > socio-economic pressures and/or the IETF can deal with this. Do I

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

Hello, RFC 7344 left out the problems of deletion and addition because they were scary. I think that the draft-ietf-dnsop-maintain-ds document is quite clear about deleting DS records, and I think it makes sense. However, in the case of adding DS records, to me the document is less of a

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

Paul, draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem document is not a working group document. The working group can adopt it or not as the working group chooses. The same is true of the document I have offered. So to answer a slightly different question than the one you asked, what I am proposing

Re: [DNSOP] draft-bortzmeyer-dname-root-00.txt

If the NXDOMAIN response is secure, your "ND" bit would at worst be harmless if it were faked, unless you're proposing that the ND bit be retained permanently! On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 02:33:28PM -0300, > George

[DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-no-response-issue-03.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 : A Common Operational Problem in DNS Servers - Failure To Respond. Author : M. Andrews

Re: [DNSOP] [internet-dra...@ietf.org: I-D Action: draft-bortzmeyer-dname-root-00.txt]

On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 02:32:31PM -0300, Shane Kerr wrote a message of 47 lines which said: > Hm, interesting. Be careful with your approval, because I'll ask Yeti to test it :-) > One minor possible concern is with .ONION, where I assume that the > Tor operators

Re: [DNSOP] [internet-dra...@ietf.org: I-D Action: draft-bortzmeyer-dname-root-00.txt]

Stephane, At 2016-04-06 13:37:15 -0300 Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > This draft is a result of a proposal I made in Yokohama > > where it seems it received some interest. > > I do not ask to discuss it during

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

On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 05:05:26PM +0200, Philip Homburg wrote a message of 20 lines which said: > Personally, I consider naming systems developed outside the IETF a > problem. Good summary of the disagreement. ___ DNSOP

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

Good comments, thanks. I will add something more about 451. On Apr 6, 2016 1:54 PM, "Stephane Bortzmeyer" wrote: > On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 07:35:19PM +, > Ted Lemon wrote > a message of 49 lines which said: > > > I wrote about six pages of

[DNSOP] [internet-dra...@ietf.org: I-D Action: draft-bortzmeyer-dname-root-00.txt]

This draft is a result of a proposal I made in Yokohama where it seems it received some interest. I do not ask to discuss it during our DNSOP meetings (I sent it too late for that and there are still too many TODOs). But it is