Re: [DNSOP] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-stale-09: (with COMMENT)

/3ae0f4e5f79e0b326608beaa77b74a1efe62663c Adam Roach via Datatracker writes: The addition of what I must presume is intended to be RFC 2119 language to a document that doesn't cite RFC 2119 seems questionable. I would suggest either explicitly adding RFC 2119 boilerplate to RFC 1035 as part of this update

[DNSOP] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-stale-09: (with COMMENT)

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-stale-09: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer

Re: [DNSOP] [Doh] New I-D: draft-reid-doh-operator

On 3/20/19 12:59 PM, Jacques Latour wrote: I'm trying to balance in my mind the requirements to protect the DNS vs. what is happening on the wire, in the end, the browser will connect to an IP address which can be (in most case) mapped to a domain name I don't think this second assertion is

Re: [DNSOP] [Doh] [dns-privacy] New: draft-bertola-bcp-doh-clients

On 3/13/19 4:17 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote: On 13/03/2019 21:06, Brian Dickson wrote: Things like DMCA and its ilk might raise the software to the level of "illegal" rather than just a contract violation by a user. Whacking someone in the head with a fish could well be illegal... but fish are

Re: [DNSOP] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-capture-format-08: (with COMMENT)

Thanks! Your proposed resolutions look good to me. /a On 11/21/18 10:58 AM, Sara Dickinson wrote: On 21 Nov 2018, at 02:09, Adam Roach <mailto:a...@nostrum.com>> wrote: Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-capture-format-08: No Objection

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-capture-format-08: (with COMMENT)

On 11/20/18 8:42 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: On Nov 20, 2018, at 6:09 PM, Adam Roach wrote: §5: o CBOR is an IETF standard and familiar to IETF participants. It is While CBOR is standards-track, it's nowhere near standard yet. Suggest: "...is an IETF specification..." (See BCP 9) T

[DNSOP] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-capture-format-08: (with COMMENT)

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-capture-format-08: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please

Re: [DNSOP] A quick update on draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf / draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-fix

On 10/19/18 7:08 AM, Warren Kumari wrote: So, there were a few documents where I was not able to quickly figure out which of the classes it should be placed in. tl;dr: my analysis is that all four of the mentioned documents should be removed from the list. Details below. RFC3861

Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-* drafts latest revisions

On 10/10/18 9:33 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: The datatracker entries are: DNS Scoped Data Through "Underscore" Naming of Attribute Leaves https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf/ Just to make sure you catch them in your audit, the following entries are still

Re: [DNSOP] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-fix-04: (with COMMENT)

On 10/10/18 8:51 AM, Dave Crocker wrote: Responding to your additional comments... Thanks! I think this reply covers everything that warranted a specific response except for the questions in the following three comments, which are asking specifically about URI RRs: Comment 1: Was the

Re: [DNSOP] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-fix-04: (with COMMENT)

On 10/10/18 8:51 AM, Dave Crocker wrote: If I am reading 6763 correctly, in terms of 'global' underscored use and distinguishing its 'hypotheticals' from actual usage, it only reserves _tcp and _udp.  (For example, its use of _ipp is second-level and therefore not global.) That's my

[DNSOP] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-13: (with COMMENT)

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-13: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer

Re: [DNSOP] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On 10/9/18 2:21 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: On 10/9/2018 2:45 PM, Adam Roach wrote: This is based on an assumption that document authors who add enumservices are more likely to notice the need [1] to add their service name to two tables than the IANA are. Given the respective levels of rigor

Re: [DNSOP] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On 10/9/18 1:22 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: On 10/8/2018 10:15 PM, Adam Roach wrote: My top-line concern is that, while the table established by this document appears to intend to be a strict superset of the Enumservices table, there are no instructions of any kind to the IANA that would result

[DNSOP] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-fix-04: (with COMMENT)

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-fix-04: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer

[DNSOP] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-13: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https

[DNSOP] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel-15: (with COMMENT)

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel-15: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please

[DNSOP] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-isp-ip6rdns-06: (with COMMENT)

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dnsop-isp-ip6rdns-06: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer

[DNSOP] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any-07: (with COMMENT)

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any-07: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-13: (with COMMENT)

On 8/31/18 11:10 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote: On Aug 30, 2018, at 3:08 AM, Adam Roach wrote: General: The document seems to omit a definition for the term "class," although it is used in many places an clearly has a very precise meaning in DNS parlance. It would be nice to see one added

[DNSOP] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-13: (with COMMENT)

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-13: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer

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

On 8/20/18 11:22 AM, Adam Roach wrote: On 8/20/18 6:39 AM, Sebastiaan Deckers wrote: > Action: Adam Roach will set up a mailing list. Where? (With apologies for the cross post.) Apologies -- this fell between the cracks. I have a request in to create the list now, and will resp

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

On 8/20/18 6:39 AM, Sebastiaan Deckers wrote: > Action: Adam Roach will set up a mailing list. Where? (With apologies for the cross post.) Apologies -- this fell between the cracks. I have a request in to create the list now, and will respond to this message with further information w

Re: [DNSOP] [Doh] Resolverless DNS Side Meeting in Montreal

On 7/10/18 12:55 PM, Joe Abley wrote: On Jul 10, 2018, at 18:02, Adam Roach wrote: In large part because DNS provides "a richer scheme that accommodates address families and multiple addresses with priorities". *cups hand to ear* Was that the sound of a distant desire to specify

Re: [DNSOP] [Doh] [Driu] Resolverless DNS Side Meeting in Montreal

On 7/10/18 12:32 PM, Philip Homburg wrote: If we decide that TLS is strong enough to defend against these attacks, then there is no need to secure the DNS lookup, other than to reduce the risk of denial of service and for privacy reasons. Then such an ip= modifier would be fine, because the

Re: [DNSOP] [Driu] [Doh] Resolverless DNS Side Meeting in Montreal

On 7/10/18 11:41 AM, Ted Lemon wrote: On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 12:34 PM, Joe Abley > wrote: > But this is really equivalent in just about every important way to sending the normal https://example.com/img/f.jpg "> along with a

Re: [DNSOP] [Doh] Resolverless DNS Side Meeting in Montreal

[as an individual] On 7/10/18 9:59 AM, Paul Wouters wrote: It seems more like an extension of the Public Suffix. Which domains can make claims about other domains. Based on the conversation that took place in DoH in Singapore, I think it's mostly *not* about this. The questions that have

[DNSOP] Adam Roach's Yes on draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse-09: (with COMMENT)

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse-09: Yes When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer