Re: [DNSOP] Second Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any

To re-raise my unaddressed points from the first Working Group Last Call: - There is no mechanism for signaling section 4.1/ section 4.3 "partial response" behavior to clients (e.g., a new OPT record EDNS header flag bit

[DNSOP] Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse-08

Reviewer: Joel Halpern Review result: Ready I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments. For more

Re: [DNSOP] term-bis and was Re: [Ext] Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps

On 16 Mar 2017, at 14:25, Edward Lewis wrote: On 3/16/17, 21:26, "DNSOP on behalf of Paul Hoffman" wrote: Please do note that we already have such a discussion (that will go for IETF consensus) active in

[DNSOP] term-bis and was Re: [Ext] Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps

On 3/16/17, 21:26, "DNSOP on behalf of Paul Hoffman" wrote: >Please do note that we already have such a discussion (that will go for >IETF consensus) active in draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis. We've been >asking for feedback on this

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps

On 3/16/17, 20:59, "Ralph Droms" wrote: >Ed - I think your document is a valuable reference and worth publishing. The >first question to ask is whether you want to continue with the publication >process. If you do, I'm sure we can find some way to publish it. In the

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps

On 16 Mar 2017, at 12:59, Ralph Droms wrote: If you really are looking for IETF discussion and consensus on the defining domain names, a third path would be an AD-sponsored submission, independent of any WG. Please do note that we already have such a discussion (that will go for IETF

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps

> On Mar 16, 2017, at 12:08 PM, Edward Lewis wrote: > > On 3/15/17, 20:22, "DNSOP on behalf of Russ Housley" on behalf of hous...@vigilsec.com> wrote: > >> I see that draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-03 still references >> I-D.lewis-domain-names,

Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption: draft-hardaker-rfc5011-security-considerations

On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 3:16 AM, tjw ietf wrote: > All > > We've had a lot of WG discussion on this, and it seems relevant to do a > formal call for adoption. If there are outstanding issues raised during > the CfA, time in Chicago will be set aside to have those

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps

On 3/15/17, 20:22, "DNSOP on behalf of Russ Housley" wrote: >I see that draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-03 still references >I-D.lewis-domain-names, but I have not seen ant WG Last Call for that >document.  What is the plan? Just accidently

Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption: draft-hardaker-rfc5011-security-considerations

this is a useful and needed document. I support its adoption by the WG. As a note to the authors, there was a proposed alternate to what became RFC 5011 which addressed some of the same issues as the current draft. It might be useful to review

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-isp-ip6rdns-03.txt

>1. I do not think there is consensus that having PTRs is or is not a best >practice, so emphasizing the lack of consensus lets us move on to what an >ISP can do, if they care to do anything. >The first paragraph has been overhauled to say "While the need for a PTR >record and for it to match >

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption draft-wouters-sury-dnsop-algorithm-update

Hi The Call for Adoption ended some time ago with very little discussion in that period, but a significant and fruitful discussions since. Considering the strong hum of the room in Seoul and the conversations on this version, the chairs consider the draft adopted, If there are items that wish

Re: [DNSOP] New terminology for root name service

https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rssac-026-14mar17-en.pdf On 3/16/17 2:03 AM, Wessels, Duane wrote: Bill, You can find RSSAC026 at the top of this page: https://www.icann.org/groups/rssac/documents DW On Mar 16, 2017, at 6:58 AM, william manning

Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption: draft-hardaker-rfc5011-security-considerations

Tim, At 2017-03-16 03:16:50 -0400 tjw ietf wrote: > We've had a lot of WG discussion on this, and it seems relevant to do a > formal call for adoption. If there are outstanding issues raised during > the CfA, time in Chicago will be set aside to have those discussions. >

Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption: draft-hardaker-rfc5011-security-considerations

On 16.3.2017 08:16, tjw ietf wrote: > All > > We've had a lot of WG discussion on this, and it seems relevant to do a > formal call for adoption. If there are outstanding issues raised > during the CfA, time in Chicago will be set aside to have those > discussions. > > > This starts a Call

[DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-hardaker-rfc5011-security-considerations in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

The DNSOP WG has placed draft-hardaker-rfc5011-security-considerations in state Call For Adoption By WG Issued (entered by Tim Wicinski) The document is available at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hardaker-rfc5011-security-considerations/ ___

[DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption: draft-hardaker-rfc5011-security-considerations

All We've had a lot of WG discussion on this, and it seems relevant to do a formal call for adoption. If there are outstanding issues raised during the CfA, time in Chicago will be set aside to have those discussions. This starts a Call for Adoption for:

[DNSOP] Second Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any

All During the first WGLC of draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any, several issues were raised by the working group that needed to be addressed. The Authors addressed the issues, but the changes are enough that there should be a second Working Group Last Call on the changes. This begins a Second WGLC for

Re: [DNSOP] New terminology for root name service

Bill, You can find RSSAC026 at the top of this page: https://www.icann.org/groups/rssac/documents DW > On Mar 16, 2017, at 6:58 AM, william manning > wrote: > > do you have a pointer to the rssac document? > > /Wm > > On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 10:31 AM, Paul