ecretariat
- End forwarded message -
--
Peter Koch | | p...@denic.de
DENIC eG| | +49 69 27235-0
Kaiserstra�e 75-77 | |
60329 Frankfurt am Main |
On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 12:04:22AM -0400, Tim Wicinski wrote:
Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for adoption
by DNSOP, and comments to the list, clearly stating your view.
I do not support accepting the draft (or the proposal it carries) as a work
item.
Other than
Dear DNSOP WG,
this is interesting times for the DNS, in operations and elsewhere.
We have recently seen increased interest in DNS and privacy/confidentiality
as well as in the topic of new TLDs, scratching the boundaries between
ICANN and the IETF, again. There are lots of new uses of the DNS
Dear WG,
Please respond by the end of next week, so that we could ask future
editors to submit a renamed -00 version by Monday, Feb 18.
thanks to all who responded and especially to those three volunteer
reviewers. However, we've not met the 5 reviewer threshold, so your
chairs agreed the WG
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 12:34:09PM -0500, Warren Kumari wrote:
The last day for submission of a -00 is Feb18th, but the last day for
adoption was the 11th.
So, if this is adopted, the authors can resubmit with a new name, but it
approved till the cycle restarts?
? 2013-02-11
Dear WG,
we have been assigned a one hour slot, as requested, for Orlando.
Thursday afternoon, 1740-1840:
Boca 1 SEC oauthWeb Authorization Protocol
Caribbean 6 RTG isis IS-IS for IP Internets
Caribbean 1 INT dhc Dynamic
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 04:17:20PM +0100, Tony Finch wrote:
Sorry, late again, but I have read through the draft and I did not find
thanks, Tony, no worries about the delay. I'm currently evaluating the
responses and will come back the week after next week.
-Peter (shepherding co-chair)
Dear DNSOP WG,
this is to initiate a working group last call (WGLC) for
DNSSEC Key Timing Considerations
draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-key-timing-03.txt
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-key-timing/
The WGLC will last until Friday, 14 September 2012
owed
the IETF.
Personnel
Peter Koch is the document shepherd, Ron Bonica is the responsible AD.
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded
Dear WG,
Title : DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2
Author(s) : Olaf M. Kolkman
W. (Matthijs) Mekking
SIDN Labs
Filename: draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc4641bis-12.txt
this version -12 is the result of a
84, Vancouver
Location: Hyatt Regency Vancouver, Georgia B
Date: Thursday, 02 August 2012
Time: 17:30 - 18:30 (UTC-7)// atoca, avtext, behave, bmwg, iri,
lwig, trill
Chairs:Peter Koch p...@denic.de p...@isoc.de
Stephen Morris step...@isc.org sa.morr
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 09:16:21PM +0300, Andreas Gustafsson wrote:
I've changed it from lame delegation to broken delegation.
I suggest simply dropping the sentence 'If they differ, it is
referred as a Lame Delegation' instead. I don't think Jim's
while this discussion is refreshing, the
Dear WG,
for the meeting in Vancouver we have asked for discussion to
happen on the list to prepare for and substantiate a high
bandwidth interaction on site. So far, the only document
we have seen addressed is that on Omniscient AS112 Servers.
We are currently considering devoting meeting time
FYI,
we have been assigned, as requested, a one hour slot for the DNSOP WG
meeting in Vancouver. The agenda http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/84/
currently sees us on Thursday, 1730-1830:
APP iri Internationalized Resource Identifiers
INT lwig Light-Weight
John, all,
In particular, is there any good reason why validators should ever have their
TA configured in a non-RFC5011 state (i.e. using trusted-keys clause in BIND
or trust-anchor-file or trust-anchor clauses in Unbound)?
thanks for your suggestion. The PROTO writeup for 4641bis is in
Dear WG,
the next IETF is approaching and your chairs need to decide whether
there is a need for face to face meeting in Taipei. We currently see
some discussion of new or evolving issues but none of the active documents
seem to have pressing open issues that would clearly benefit from
a
Dear WG,
the next IETF is approaching and your chairs need to decide whether
there is a need for face to face meeting in Taipei. We currently see
some discussion of new or evolving issues but none of the active documents
seem to have pressing open issues that would clearly benefit from
a meeting
You may have seen a similar request on the dnsext list: we're looking for
reviewers for draft-ietf-geopriv-res-gw-lis-discovery-02.txt.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-geopriv-res-gw-lis-discovery-02
If you are able and willing to devote some time and energy on a thorough
review of this
Dear WG,
With four, admittedly long lasting, drafts now published as RFCs
and several others in or approaching WGLC, it is time to look at
the remaining action items or milestones for the DNSOP WG.
Your chairs would like to devote some time in Quebec to gauge
interest in future work. We'd like to
Dear WG,
with the recent advent of
RFC 6303, Locally Served DNS Zones [BCP0163]
RFC 6304, AS112 Nameserver Operations
RFC 6305, I'm Being Attacked by PRISONER.IANA.ORG!
I'd like to express thanks for the hard work to Mark, Joe, and William as the
editors of these
Dear WG,
the DNSOP slot for Quebec has been (re-)scheduled to Tuesday, 1300
http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/81/#2011-07-28_1300. The main agenda is
still in flux, so the list of parallel sessions may change.
this has now happened. While we otherwise maintained our slot assignment,
netext was
Dear WG,
the DNSOP slot for Quebec has been (re-)scheduled to Tuesday, 1300
http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/81/#2011-07-28_1300. The main agenda is
still in flux, so the list of parallel sessions may change.
We've been assigned a two hour slot, which is a bit longer than what we asked
for. Please
is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?
Peter Koch is the document shepherd and believes
Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?
Peter Koch is the document shepherd and believes
Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?
Peter Koch is the document shepherd and believes
, karp, mext, pce, pcp,
sipcore
Chairs:Peter Koch p...@denic.de p...@isoc.de
Stephen Morris step...@isc.org sa.morr...@googlemail.com
Jabber:xmpp:dn...@jabber.ietf.org
WG URL:http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dnsop/
Agenda:http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/79/#dnsop
Agenda
and, in particular, does he or she believe this
version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?
Peter Koch is the shepherd for this document, has read the
latest version draft-ietf-dnsop-name-server-management-reqs-04.txt
and yes, I believe it is ready for publication.
(1.b) Has
Dear DNSOP WG,
as requested by the document editors, this message initiates a
working group last call for
Title : AS112 Nameserver Operations
Author(s) : J. Abley, W. Maton
Filename: draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-ops-04.txt
for publication as an Informational
Dear DNSOP WG,
this is to cover agenda item 2 on tomorrows agenda, giving a short summary
of the status of the various wg documents. Please direct questions
to us chairs or the WG list in general.
-Peter and Stephen
-
, urnbis
Chairs:Peter Koch p...@denic.de p...@isoc.de
Stephen Morris step...@isc.org
Jabber:xmpp:dn...@jabber.ietf.org
WG URL:http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dnsop/
Agenda:http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/78/agenda/dnsop.txt
Material: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/78
Dear WG,
the agenda at http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/78/agenda/dnsop.txt
has been updated to adjust timestamps and draft version numbers.
Please read the three documents listed there, especially 4641bis,
to the discussion of which we have devoted the majority of Tuesday's
meeting time.
Also,
: MECC Maastricht, 2.1 Colorado
Date: Tuesday, 27 July 2010
Time: 09:00 - 11:30 (UTC+2)(// conex, dispatch, fedauth, hiprg,
netmod, pwe3, urnbis
Chairs:Peter Koch p...@isoc.de p...@denic.de
Stephen Morris step...@isc.org
Jabber:xmpp:dn...@jabber.ietf.org
Location: MECC Maastricht, Berlin/Copenhagen
Date: Monday, 26 July 2010
Time: 09:00 - 11:30 (UTC+2)(// 6lowpan, apparea, behave, fedauth,
idr, l2vpn, sipcore)
Chairs:Peter Koch p...@isoc.de p...@denic.de
Stephen Morris step...@isc.org
Jabber:xmpp:dn
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 02:32:54PM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
Probably true, but not relevant to the discussion. The idea is to force
imple
menters to look at the registry so that they see *future* additions to it,
ev
en if they get there from reading this RFC-to-be.
You can't
Dear WG,
DNSSEC Key Timing Considerations, draft-morris-dnsop-dnssec-key-timing-02.txt,
and its predecessors were presented to the working group in Anaheim the
last time. There was discussion on the document itself as well as its
relation to draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc4641bis. The authors asked for
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 02:19:57PM +, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
ANY TIME?? ever?
how about ... deletions from the registry will allow the domain
names to be resolved on the public Internet at some reasonable
time after removal from the registry.
Dear WG,
Stephen and myself have worked together to review the status of the various
WG documents and to distribute shepherding responsibilities. This will allow
us to clear the backlog.
Instead of going through these in the WG meeting later today, we'd
like to present the list here, so it is
Hilton, California A
Date: Wednesday, 24 march 2010
Time: 13:00 - 15:00 (UTC-7)(// 6man, avt, hybi, krb-wg, p2prg,
pwe3, tsvarea
Chairs:Peter Koch p...@isoc.de p...@denic.de
Stephen Morris stephen.mor...@nominet.org.uk
Jabber:xmpp:dn...@jabber.ietf.org
WG
Dear WG,
any other little questions bothering you that we might help with?
may I ask everybody to remain calm and on topic on this list and to neither
engage into personal attacks nor to misinterpret any such attack by others,
perceived or real, as an invitation to a race towards low
Dear WG,
please find below the minutes of our Hiroshima meeting. Many thanks to John
for timely delivery and also to Wolfgang for jabber scribing.
the minutes are now also available in the IETF 76 proccedings:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/76/agenda/dnsop.txt
s...@isc.org
Peter Koch p...@isoc.de p...@denic.de
Minutes: John Schnizlein
Jabber:xmpp:dn...@jabber.ietf.org
J-Scribe: Wolfgang Nagele
J-Script: http://www.ietf.org/jabber/logs/dnsop/2009-11-11.txt
Audio:
ftp://videolab.uoregon.edu/pub/videolab/video/ietf76/ietf76
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 07:07:13AM +0100, $me wrote:
[adoption of ...]
DNSSEC Signing Policy Practice Statement Framework
draft-ljunggren-dps-framework-01.txt
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ljunggren-dps-framework-01
This mail is to confirm the adoption on the WG list.
Dear WG,
during the session on Wednesday, the authors of
DNSSEC Signing Policy Practice Statement Framework
draft-ljunggren-dps-framework-01.txt
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ljunggren-dps-framework-01
asked for the adoption of the draft as a working group item. The
On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 09:34:58AM +0200, Matthijs Mekking wrote:
According to the behave ML, they are planning to cover that DNS topic
indeed on the monday:
thanks for pointing this out, it's indeed an important overlap. We're
coordinating with the behave chairs to get this resolved, which
Dear WG,
the DNSOP WG meeting in Stockholm has been moved from Friday morning to
Monday morning, 0900-1130 (// apparea, behave, mip4, mpls, pcn, syslog, xmpp).
Please let Rob/$me know whether this generates a serious conflict, so we
can at least try to get the meeting re-rescheduled.
The agenda
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 08:36:47AM +0200, Patrik Fältström wrote:
[On request from Olaf, also dnsop is included:ed]
hat dnsop co-chair
The discussion and input is very wolcome in DNSOP. For reasons related
to Note Well http://www.ietf.org/maillist.html we'll not be able to
routinely approve
Dear WG,
the draft IETF 75 agenda, available from http://www.ietf.org/meetings/75/
as a PDF, shows dnsop as scheduled on Friday morning 0900-1130.
Conflicts in the same slot:
dhc, dtnrg, ippm, mip4, mpls, rrg, sipcore
As always, this is subject to change.
Please let Rob and me know
, Continental 4
Date: Tuesday, 24 March 2009
Time: 15:20 - 17:00 (UTC-8)
Chairs:Rob Austein s...@hactrn.net s...@isc.org
Peter Koch p...@isoc.de p...@denic.de
Minutes: John Schnizlein
Jabber:xmpp:dn...@jabber.ietf.org
J-Scribe: Bruce Campbell, Benno Overeinder
J-Script
Peter Koch p...@isoc.de p...@denic.de
Jabber:xmpp:dn...@jabber.ietf.org
WG URL:http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dnsop/
Material: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/74/materials.html
Version: $Revision: 1.4
On 18.03.2009, at 17:37, TSG wrote:
Peter - I notice that the standards don't say anything about the
EU's Data Integrity Directive which in fact will effect the
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 11:03:58AM +0100, Ralf Weber wrote:
I'm not sure where you get the numbers, but the EU's population is
Dear WG,
the agenda for San Francisco gives us a 100 minute slot on Tuesday afternoon:
Date: Tuesday, 25 March 2009
Time: 15:20 - 17:00 (UTC-8) //mmox, ancp, mext, speermint, rtgarea, keyprov,
krb-wg
Please let Rob and me know of any items you'd like to see on the agenda.
Also, please note
From the main IETF discussion list. The WG participants might have some
ideas if and how to frame an experiment like this. Please read the archive,
there have been some interesting follow ups.
-Peter
- Forwarded message from Russ Housley [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
From: Russ Housley [EMAIL
)
Meeting: IETF 73, Minneapolis
Location: Hilton Minneapolis, Minneapolis, US; Salon E
Date: Wednesday, 19 November 2008
Time: 13:00 - 15:00 (UTC-6)(//csi, p2psip, mpls, manet, nea,
tsvarea, vcarddav
Chairs:Rob Austein [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Peter Koch
Todd, Florian, All,
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 02:25:21PM -0700, TS Glassey wrote:
No Florian - the requirement is created by the IETF's continued violation
of the IPR space that the patent creates period. Once people stop filing
infringing works with the IETF and violating my IP Rights then
Dear WG,
the tentative agenda for Minnepolis gives us a two-hour slot on Wednesday:
Date: Wednesday, 19 November 2008
Time: 13:00 - 15:00 (UTC-6) //csi, iccrg, p2psip, mpls, manet, nea, tsvarea
Please let Rob and me know of any items you'd like to see on the agenda,
an early version of which
- Forwarded message from NomCom Chair [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
The 2008-9 IETF Nominating Committee needs your help.
We have started getting candidates.
If we are going to do our job in time, we have only 3 more weeks to get
enough candidates to have a reasonable pool for all the jobs.
At the
For those of you not subscribed to the main ietf list(s), here's a note
from the secretariat regarding a mishap with the IETF mail service.
If you don't find your message in the DNSOP archive at
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/index.html
you may have to resend your
:DNS Operations (dnsop)
Meeting: IETF 72, Dublin
Location: Citywest Hotel, Saggart, Co Dublin, IE; Ballroom 1
Date: Tuesday, 29 July 2008
Time: 13:00 - 15:00 (UTC+1)
Chairs:Rob Austein [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Peter Koch [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 11:53:02AM -0700, David Conrad wrote:
If you ensure the namespace and authorities are identical between the
two infrastructures, there are no technical issues (at least that I've
heard about).
{diving into a detail - the ARPA zone shares its NS RRSet with the root
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 03:27:15PM +, Paul Vixie wrote:
i answered this on namedroppers, where the thread actually belongs.
at the risk of splitting hairs, the three different proposals did not all
strive to change the protocol. Also, this started out from the observation
that ANY queries
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 04:06:05PM -0700, David Conrad wrote:
- if the advertised EDNS0 buffer size is not large enough, it will
trigger truncation and, as a result, an increase in the number of TCP
sessions going to the root.
assumed that it's reasonable to focus on referrals and
PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Peter Koch [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jabber:xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
WG URL:http://www.dnsop.org
Material: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/72/materials.html
Version: $Revision: 1.4
Dear DNSOP WG,
just to let everybody know: given that
draft-hardaker-dnsops-name-server-management-reqs-03.txt was a design team
deliverable and there was considerable support during the DNSOP meeting
today, this draft is now an accepted deliverable as a starting point
for future work and
/proceedings/07dec/slides/v6ops-5/sld1.htm
[5] http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-xli-behave-ivi
___
Int-area mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
- End forwarded message -
--
Peter Koch
Gervase,
first I'd like to thank Yngve for providing the pointer and you for following
his advice.
I am not particularly interested in a long discussion about whether we
need this data. Please be assured that we need it. I am, on the other
hand, open to suggestions about better ways to obtain
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 11:30:56AM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
[...]
could be altered slightly to
The DNS Operations (DNSOP) Working Group will develop and review
guidelines for the correct, efficient and secure configuration,
administration, and operation of DNS
Dear WG,
during the DNSOP session in Philadelphia the people present felt that there
were a couple of active drafts ready for WGLC but it would be a good
idea to spread the actual Last Calls to avoid peaks of load for the
volunteer reviewers and other entities involved. So, here's an outline
for
Dean,
So root and gTLD DNS server operations supervision is off the charter?
to the extent that is has never been there, yes.
It used to be the first item. This appears to affect ISOC IETF
commitments to ICANN to provide this technical role.
If you could support this observation by
Dear WG,
it's only four weeks left to IETF71, so here's the usual call for agenda items.
Please submit any proposals and suggestions to Rob and me by Tuesday, 26 FEB,
2200 UTC.
The preliminary agenda at https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/71/agenda.html
gives us a two hour slot on Tuesday
@@ -259,7 +275,7 @@
No action required, the design team is supposed to meet during
the remaining IETF week.
- 5.3) DNS Search Path Issues [ 10:10 {audio 1:XX:XX} ]
+ 5.3) DNS Search Path Issues [ 10:10 {audio 1:13:50} ]
Peter Koch
)
Meeting: IETF 70, Vancouver
Location: The Westin Bayshore Resort and Marina, Salon A
Date: Monday, 03 December 2007
Time: 09:00 - 11:30 (UTC-8)
Chairs:Rob Austein [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Peter Koch [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Minutes: Shane Kerr
Dear WG,
we've done this twice now in face to face meetings, but let's double check on
the list:
There is a request to adopt draft-larson-dnsop-trust-anchor-02.txt
DNSSEC Trust Anchor Configuration and Maintenance as a DNSOP WG item.
The topic is covered by our charter.
Now is the time to
Dear WG,
a draft agenda for the upcoming Vancouver IETF has peen posted at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/70/agenda.html. The current
scheduling gives us a 2.5 hr slot on Monday morning, but please remember this
is subject to change, at least until 12 Nov.
Please submit requests for
-
WG:DNS Operations (dnsop)
Meeting: IETF 69, Chicago
Location: Palmer House Hilton, Monroe
Date: Tuesday, 24 July 2007
Time: 09:00 - 11:30 (UTC -0500)
Chairs:Rob Austein, Peter Koch
Minutes: John Kristoff
Jabber
Dear WG,
the IETF wide Last Call mentioned below lasts until 2007-09-20. Since it's
kind of a DNS operational topic, WG participants might be interested.
Discussion should take place on the IETF list, as requested.
-Peter
- Forwarded message from The IESG [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
From: The
Dear WG,
find below the list of WG documents and their current status as seen by the
chairs (see also http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dnsop/):
o draft-huston-6to4-reverse-dns-07.txt
https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/draft-huston-6to4-reverse-dns/
@IESG, Publication requested
resolving
to the IESG for publication?
Peter Koch (==me) is the Document Shepherd for this document.
I have read the latest version (-04) of the draft and believe it
is ready for consideration by the IESG.
(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
Dear WG,
the draft draft-ietf-dnsop-respsize-07.txt, DNS Referral Response Size
Issues has been on our plate for quite a while. After the Prague meeting,
four people have come forward with a review, all but one supported the
document with minor changes suggested, the fourth reviewer put more
Dear WG,
in Prague we discussed the two documents in our AS112 basket (setting aside
similarities to AS112 in a box for a moment). Some discussion around the
document draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-ops-00.txt arose and some questions need
to be addressed. The sense of the room was, though, that the user
Dear WG,
dnsop will meet in Chicago during the Tuesday morning slot (09:00 - 11:30),
see https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/69/agenda.html.
Please submit requests for agenda slots to Rob and me. An agenda outline
is available at http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07jul/agenda/dnsop.txt.
The
Dear WG,
just a reminder: requests for changes/additions to the Prague dnsop minutes
(available at http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07mar/minutes/dnsop.txt)
are due Tuesday, 08 May, 12:00 UTC.
no updates, changes or questions were received by that dateor until $now,
so please consider these
)
Chairs:Rob Austein, Peter Koch
Minutes: Jakob Schlyter
Jabber:xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
J-Scribe: Shane Kerr, Alex Mayrhofer
J-Script: http://www3.ietf.org/meetings/ietf-logs/dnsop/2007-03-19.html
Audio:
http://limestone.uoregon.edu/ftp/pub/videolab/media/ietf68/ietf68-ch5-mon-afnoon
Dear WG,
the draft last called in the announcement below might be of interest to
DNS operators. It defines another NAPTR based service location scheme,
similar to S-NAPTR (RFC 3958).
-Peter
--- Forwarded Message
From:The IESG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: IETF-Announce
83 matches
Mail list logo
