Re: [DNSOP] Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-08

On 12/18/2017 10:20 PM, Martin Hoffmann wrote: That said, there seems to be a mistake in the text for the common display format: | so, in both English and C the first label in the ordered list is | right-most Previously this list was defined as being "ordered ordered by decreasing distance

Re: [DNSOP] Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-08

Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 01:36:00PM +0100, > Martin Hoffmann wrote > a message of 297 lines which said: > > > GLOBAL DNS -- FORMAT OF NAMES > > > > | Names in the common display format are normally written such that > > the | directionality

Re: [DNSOP] Please review in terminology-bis: In-bailiwick, Out-of-bailiwick, In-domain, Sibling domain

Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 10:27:32AM -0800, > Paul Hoffman wrote > a message of 28 lines which said: > > > - In-bailiwick > > - Out-of-bailiwick > > The current definition is restrictive: it mentions only name servers. > > IMHO,

Re: [DNSOP] Please review in terminology-bis: In-bailiwick, Out-of-bailiwick, In-domain, Sibling domain

Thanks for the input. This is now slated for the next version of the draft. --Paul Hoffman ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] [iesg-secret...@ietf.org: Results of IETF-conflict review for draft-klensin-dns-function-considerations-04]

On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 3:23 PM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 11:31:11AM -0800, > Paul Hoffman wrote > a message of 17 lines which said: > >> > Probably relevant for this group. >> >> Surprisingly not. An IETF-conflict review is

Re: [DNSOP] [iesg-secret...@ietf.org: Results of IETF-conflict review for draft-klensin-dns-function-considerations-04]

On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 11:31:11AM -0800, Paul Hoffman wrote a message of 17 lines which said: > > Probably relevant for this group. > > Surprisingly not. An IETF-conflict review is just the IESG's way of > giving input on a document that the Independent Submissions

Re: [DNSOP] [iesg-secret...@ietf.org: Results of IETF-conflict review for draft-klensin-dns-function-considerations-04]

Thanks for calming fears. With "..document asks the question of whether it is time to either redesign and replace the DNS.." in the abstract of a doc by Klensin, I was a bit worried. -Rick > -Original Message- > From: DNSOP [mailto:dnsop-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Paul Hoffman >

Re: [DNSOP] [iesg-secret...@ietf.org: Results of IETF-conflict review for draft-klensin-dns-function-considerations-04]

On 18 Dec 2017, at 11:16, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: Probably relevant for this group. Surprisingly not. An IETF-conflict review is just the IESG's way of giving input on a document that the Independent Submissions Editor (ISE) might publish in the future. Having said that, if anyone has

[DNSOP] is the root special? (musings of an old timer) - was Re: [Ext] Re: Making draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel apply to all zones

On 12/15/17, 11:34, "DNSOP on behalf of Joe Abley" wrote: >That seems fair. I was definitely speaking from a set of personal assumptions >without any data; it's certainly possible that non-root trust anchors are >widely deployed, however

[DNSOP] [iesg-secret...@ietf.org: Results of IETF-conflict review for draft-klensin-dns-function-considerations-04]

Probably relevant for this group. --- Begin Message --- The IESG has completed a review of draft-klensin-dns-function-considerations-04 consistent with RFC5742. The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'DNS Privacy, Authorization, Special Uses, Encoding, Characters, Matching, and Root

Re: [DNSOP] Please review in terminology-bis: QNAME

On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 2:05 PM, Paul Vixie wrote: > > > Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > >> As I mentioned in this errata >> , I think RFC 2308 was >> wrong in redefining QNAME. My personal preference would be to change >> the second

Re: [DNSOP] Please review in terminology-bis: QNAME

Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: As I mentioned in this errata , I think RFC 2308 was wrong in redefining QNAME. My personal preference would be to change the second paragraph to "RFC 2308 proposed another definition, different from the original one. Since

Re: [DNSOP] Please review in terminology-bis: Global DNS and Private DNS

On Dec 18, 2017, at 8:52 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > I think that it would be better to remove "global DNS". It is not a > technical definition and it assumes things like the mythical "names > operational community". This draft is about DNS terminology. From the > point of

Re: [DNSOP] DNS privacy and AS 112: the case of home.arpa

On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 12:53:30PM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote a message of 41 lines which said: > Also IANA was NOT instructed to delegate to the AS112 servers. IANA > was instructed to delegate to back hole servers and a example of > which, the AS112 servers, was presented. I

Re: [DNSOP] Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-08

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 01:36:00PM +0100, Martin Hoffmann wrote a message of 297 lines which said: > GLOBAL DNS -- FORMAT OF NAMES > > | Names in the common display format are normally written such that the > | directionality of the writing system presents labels by

Re: [DNSOP] Please review in terminology-bis: Global DNS and Private DNS

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 10:28:04AM -0800, Paul Hoffman wrote a message of 14 lines which said: > Section 2 has definitions of "Global DNS" and "Private DNS", based > on the facets listed in "Naming system". This was discussed heavily > on the list earlier, but it is

Re: [DNSOP] Please review in terminology-bis: In-bailiwick, Out-of-bailiwick, In-domain, Sibling domain

On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 11:30:00AM +0900, fujiw...@jprs.co.jp wrote a message of 74 lines which said: > Adding examples as a table is good ? or too large ? No, not too large. It is a very good idea and this table is useful.

Re: [DNSOP] Please review in terminology-bis: In-bailiwick, Out-of-bailiwick, In-domain, Sibling domain

On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 10:27:32AM -0800, Paul Hoffman wrote a message of 28 lines which said: > - In-bailiwick > - Out-of-bailiwick The current definition is restrictive: it mentions only name servers. IMHO, "in-bailiwick" could be said for any domain name, even if

Re: [DNSOP] Please review in terminology-bis: QNAME

On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 07:30:27AM -0800, Paul Hoffman wrote a message of 16 lines which said: > Some of the new terms added to the terminology-bis draft > (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis/)since > RFC 7719 can expose what some (but not

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-08.txt

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 09:53:32AM -0800, Paul Hoffman wrote a message of 59 lines which said: > We will be opening new issues in the coming weeks with the intention to be > ready for WG Last Call by mid-January. I've read the document and it seems basically OK to me

[DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-let-localhost-be-localhost-02.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 WG of the IETF. Title : Let 'localhost' be localhost. Author : Mike West Filename: