Re: [DNSOP] QNAME minimisation on the standards track?

I'd like to see this standardized too. Side note: I would also be interested to get a return of experience from people operating qname minimization at scale, the type of issues encountered, what are the ratios of such errors hint @marek :) Manu On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 2:35 PM Paul Wouters

[DNSOP] Current Document Status

All In preparation for tomorrow's meeting I've updated our document status, which is located here: https://github.com/DNSOP/wg-materials/blob/master/dnsop-document-status.txt See y'all in the morning. # DNSOP Chairs Status Updated: 17 July 2018 Official document list:

Re: [DNSOP] [Doh] SRV and HTTP - 18:30 Tuesday (room change)

These are great notes Shane. We're going to talk about APEX records in the DNSOP session in the morning. Tim On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 7:43 PM, Shane Kerr wrote: > All, > > I took some random notes at the meeting. Apologies for any errors or > misstatements. > > Cheers, > > -- > Shane > >

Re: [DNSOP] [Doh] SRV and HTTP - 18:30 Tuesday (room change)

All, I took some random notes at the meeting. Apologies for any errors or misstatements. Cheers, -- Shane 2018-07-17 Bar BoF with about 35 people. Mark Nottingham leads the discussion. Why not SRV for HTTP? Some work before: * draft-andrews-srv-http * New URI scheme also died. Use cases

Re: [DNSOP] QNAME minimisation on the standards track?

On Tue, 17 Jul 2018, tjw ietf wrote: Subject: Re: [DNSOP] QNAME minimisation on the standards track? I’d like to see a more fleshed out operational considerations section. That would be good indeed. Especially with respect to broken DNS load balancers. I have enabled it in Fedora from the

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-capture-format

We have read this document and think it's ready to move forward. We've also been using the dns-compactor implementation of this standard and it has shown itself to be quite stable and robust. We're looking forward to having this format standardized and hopefully more community interest than

[DNSOP] Logistics for DNSOP at IETF 102

Hi all, and welcome to IETF 102! DNSOP has two slots: Wednesday morning 9:30-12:00 local time in Montreal (the Laurier room), and Thursday evening 18:10-19:10 (the Place du Canada room). NOTE DIFFERENT ROOMS. Meeting materials, including agendas and drafts, are linked from the usual place:

Re: [DNSOP] QNAME minimisation on the standards track?

I'd like to see this on the standards track as well. Cloudflare has some operational experience with it (it's enabled by default on 1.1.1.1). It mostly works, but still has to be turned off on several delegations that either don't respond to non-terminals, respond with positive answer that's

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-huque-dnsop-multi-provider-dnssec

On 6 Jul 2018, at 20:26, Tim Wicinski wrote: We've had some interest in moving this document forward, and the chairs wanted to kick off this Call for Adoption before Montreal so if there are concerns there will be some meeting time to address. This document is label as: Informational. The

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-huque-dnsop-multi-provider-dnssec

On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 7:13 AM Shumon Huque wrote: > [..] The portion of the community that > would benefit from actually using the new deployment models described > in the document is likely much smaller: a set of enterprises that > need to deploy DNSSEC in a multiple signing provider

Re: [DNSOP] QNAME minimisation on the standards track?

I’d like to see a more fleshed out operational considerations section. Tim As chair From my high tech gadget > On Jul 17, 2018, at 08:14, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > > Greetings. With more resolvers implementing QNAME minimisation, and > even turning it on by default, we thought that this

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-huque-dnsop-multi-provider-dnssec

> -Original Message- > From: DNSOP On Behalf Of Petr Špacek > Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 7:19 AM > To: dnsop@ietf.org > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-huque-dnsop- > multi-provider-dnssec > > On 14.7.2018 06:12, Shumon Huque wrote: > >> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at

[DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-bortzmeyer-rfc7816bis in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

The DNSOP WG has placed draft-bortzmeyer-rfc7816bis in state Candidate for WG Adoption (entered by Tim Wicinski) The document is available at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bortzmeyer-rfc7816bis/ ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org

[DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc2845bis-00.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 : Secret Key Transaction Authentication for DNS (TSIG) Authors : Francis Dupont

[DNSOP] QNAME minimisation on the standards track?

Greetings. With more resolvers implementing QNAME minimisation, and even turning it on by default, we thought that this is a good time to update RFC 7816 and make it a standard. In order to get things moving, we have published a very early draft draft-bortzmeyer-rfc7816bis-00 that is mostly the

Re: [DNSOP] IETF 102 Hackathon: prototype implementation of draft-wessels-dns-zone-digest-02

On 15.7.2018 20:37, Shane Kerr wrote: > Bonjour, > > I decided to implement draft-wessels-dns-zone-digest-02 at the IETF 102 > Hackathon. As expected, it is fairly straightforward. You can see the > code on GitHub: > > https://github.com/shane-kerr/ZoneDigestHackathon > > It seems to work,

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-huque-dnsop-multi-provider-dnssec

On 14.7.2018 06:12, Shumon Huque wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 12:06 PM Joe Abley > wrote: >> >> I actually think the document is actually almost entirely operational; >> at least, it describes a set of operational and design considerations >> for deploying DNS