Re: [DNSOP] FW: New Version Notification for draft-mglt-dnsop-dnssec-validator-requirements-04.txt

Thanks for the review, I will update the copy on the git accordingly. Yours, Daniel On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 9:51 AM, Bob Harold wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 10:16 AM, Daniel Migault < > daniel.miga...@ericsson.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Please find an update of our

Re: [DNSOP] new ANAME draft: draft-hunt-dnsop-aname-00.txt

Hi Paul, On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 05:16:14PM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote: > When a recursive resolver sends a query of type A or and > receives a response with an ANAME RRset in the answer section, it > MUST re-query for the ANAME . This is necessary because, in > some cases,

Re: [DNSOP] new ANAME draft: draft-hunt-dnsop-aname-00.txt

On Fri, 7 Apr 2017, Evan Hunt wrote: Here's the new ANAME draft I mentioned last week. I like this one a little better, but :) When an ANAME record is present at a DNS node and a query is received by an authoritative server for type A or , the authoritative server returns the

[DNSOP] Workshop on Passive DNS -- Atlanta, GA -- May 4 (13:00) to May 5 (12:00), 2017

Workshop on Passive DNS -- Atlanta, GA -- May 4 (13:00) to May 5 (12:00), 2017 Cox Communications and Farsight Security invite members of the DNS community to join a two-halfday workshop to be held in Atlanta, GA from mid-day Thursday May 4 until mid-day Friday May 5, including dinner on May 4.

Re: [DNSOP] new ANAME draft: draft-hunt-dnsop-aname-00.txt

Hi Job, On 7 Apr 2017, at 20:24, Job Snijders wrote: > Dear Evan & Authors, > > Can you add a RFC 7942 section to this document? Absolutely, we’ll do that in -01. Kind regards, -- Peter van Dijk PowerDNS.COM BV - https://www.powerdns.com/ ___ DNSOP

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-05.txt

Paul Hoffman wrote: > On 4 Apr 2017, at 23:57, Peter van Dijk wrote: > >> Notwithstanding your stubborn redefinition in 8020, the text in 2308 >> is correct and this erratum is wrong. > > That "stubborn redefinition" has modern WG and IETF consensus. well, yes, but, it's still wrong. -- P

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-05.txt

(I'm surprised our philosophy-minded folks didn't answer this. I'll take a stab, acknowledging that I'm only a philosophy tourist.) On 30 Mar 2017, at 13:41, Andrew McConachie wrote: If a domain name is made up of labels, and labels are made up of octets, then can there be non-digital

Re: [DNSOP] new ANAME draft: draft-hunt-dnsop-aname-00.txt

Dear Evan & Authors, Can you add a RFC 7942 section to this document? Pending an IANA Early Allocation, I expect these implementations to be residing in private / beta branches until a DNS RR data type value has been assigned. I think it will be beneficial for the working group dialogue to have

[DNSOP] new ANAME draft: draft-hunt-dnsop-aname-00.txt

Greetings, Here's the new ANAME draft I mentioned last week. This is similar to existing non-standard approaches (ALIAS records, CNAME-flattening, etc) but also sends the ANAME record to the resolver so that, if the resolver understands the ANAME type, it can re-query for the answer just as it

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-05.txt

On 4 Apr 2017, at 23:57, Peter van Dijk wrote: Notwithstanding your stubborn redefinition in 8020, the text in 2308 is correct and this erratum is wrong. That "stubborn redefinition" has modern WG and IETF consensus. --Paul Hoffman ___ DNSOP

Re: [DNSOP] Unexpected REFUSED from BIND when using example config from RFC7706

Bjørn Mork wrote: > > The reason I ask here first, is because RFC 7706 includes a BIND > specific configuration example (as well as examples for other recursive > server software). So before considering changing config or code, I > wanted to know the background of that example.

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-05.txt

On 4 Apr 2017, at 11:35, Mark Andrews wrote: In message <20170328143352.ga12...@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>, Stephane Bortzmeyer writes: The new definition of QNAME describes as equivalent two conflicting definitions, the original one, in RFC 1034, and the one of RFC 2308, which seems used only

[DNSOP] Definition of "root zone"

Greetings again. In a side conversation, we realized that the definition of "root zone" in RFC 7719 is DNS-centric, and does not apply to other domain name systems. I have opened an issue with two different proposed solutions:

Re: [DNSOP] New draft for ALIAS/ANAME type

In many cases, DNS Made Easy is seeing ANAME records requiring synthesized A record updates every 90 seconds or so. Also, it is surprising to me that our non-apex ANAME record count has surpassed apex ANAME record count by a significant amount. We have approximately 25% fewer apex ANAME records

Re: [DNSOP] Unexpected REFUSED from BIND when using example config from RFC7706

On 7 Apr 2017, at 1:50, Bjørn Mork wrote: bert hubert writes: On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 10:20:00AM +0200, Bjørn Mork wrote: Just to avoid any confusion: Although I demonstrated the issue by running BIND on my laptop only, the real usage scenario is resolver service

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-02.txt

On 31.3.2017 17:52, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 08:15:45AM -0700, > internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote > a message of 43 lines which said: > >> Title : DNS Scoped Data Through Global '_Underscore' >> Naming of Attribute Leaves

Re: [DNSOP] FW: New Version Notification for draft-mglt-dnsop-dnssec-validator-requirements-04.txt

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 10:16 AM, Daniel Migault < daniel.miga...@ericsson.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Please find an update of our draft on requirements for DNSSEC resolver. > > DNS resolvers hardly enable DNSSEC as 1) resolvers are not robust too DNS > authoritative operations – like KSK roll over,

[DNSOP] extended deadline Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld

Hi, We had initially scheduled the WGLC on this document to be over by now. However, the flurry of activity around the review we were asked to do on the homenet-dot draft, and the general traffic level on the list during IETF 98, suggested to the chairs that we should extend the WGLC. We’re

Re: [DNSOP] DNSSEC validator requirements

On 31.3.2017 05:48, Evan Hunt wrote: > I have reviewed draft-mglt-dnsop-dnssec-validator-requirements-04.txt and > some comments on the substance of it are below. (I'll also send some > grammatical nitpicks via private mail.) > >> However, without valid trust anchor(s) and an acceptable value for

Re: [DNSOP] Unexpected REFUSED from BIND when using example config from RFC7706

bert hubert writes: > On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 10:20:00AM +0200, Bjørn Mork wrote: >> Just to avoid any confusion: Although I demonstrated the issue by >> running BIND on my laptop only, the real usage scenario is resolver >> service for a few million distinct

Re: [DNSOP] Unexpected REFUSED from BIND when using example config from RFC7706

On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 10:20:00AM +0200, Bjørn Mork wrote: > Just to avoid any confusion: Although I demonstrated the issue by > running BIND on my laptop only, the real usage scenario is resolver > service for a few million distinct administrative domains (aka > "customers"). Changing the trust

Re: [DNSOP] Unexpected REFUSED from BIND when using example config from RFC7706

Just to avoid any confusion: Although I demonstrated the issue by running BIND on my laptop only, the real usage scenario is resolver service for a few million distinct administrative domains (aka "customers"). Changing the trust anchor is not an option. Bjørn

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-wireformat-http-01.txt

Hello, On 28.3.2017 16:58, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote: > 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 : DNS wire-format over HTTP > Authors

Re: [DNSOP] New draft for ALIAS/ANAME type

On 4.4.2017 19:30, Matthew Pounsett wrote: > On 4 April 2017 at 13:21, Tony Finch > wrote: > > > I believe that's a faulty assumption. Here's some data: > > > > [...] During the month of February, [...] an average of 31 changes > per zone.