Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-huston-kskroll-sentinel

I support adoption of this work and I'm willing to review and contribute as needed. mehmet On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 12:23 AM, tjw ietf wrote: > All > > The author has rolled out a new version addressing comments from the > meeting on Monday, and we feel it’s ready to move

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-huston-kskroll-sentinel

Hi The call for adoption for this has ended and the groups has requested adoption. I will contact the authors about updating their draft with the new name as well as addressing open issues during the call. tim On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 3:23 AM, tjw ietf wrote: > All > >

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-huston-kskroll-sentinel

> On Nov 16, 2017, at 3:23 AM, tjw ietf wrote: > > This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-huston-kskroll-sentinel I support the document and will review and provide comments. Matt ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-huston-kskroll-sentinel

On Nov 27, 2017, 11:47 AM -0800, Richard Barnes , wrote: > I don't think that it make sense to infer from the failure of RFC 8145 that > resolver/authoritative telemetry isn't possible Huh? RFC 8145 wasn’t a failure — it was stunningly successful. Within a few months of

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-huston-kskroll-sentinel

tjw ietf writes: > The author has rolled out a new version addressing comments from the > meeting on Monday, and we feel it’s ready to move this along. FYI, I hate this document. I hate the idea of introducing yet another magic keyword into the DNS protocol that requires

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-huston-kskroll-sentinel

> On Nov 27, 2017, at 11:47 AM, Richard Barnes wrote: > > I don't think that it make sense to infer from the failure of RFC 8145 ... Do you really think RFC 8145 is a failure (even having only recently learned about its existence)? No doubt there are complications and

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-huston-kskroll-sentinel

On 27 Nov 2017, at 14:47, Richard Barnes wrote: > As tempting as it may be to do the easy thing, it's not always the best use > of resources. Looking at the closest tree might be easy for one observer, > but when you try to do it with enough observers to have a result that's >

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-huston-kskroll-sentinel

As I imagine you've heard, part of the problem with resolver-authoritative telemetry interfaces is that the deployed infrastructure is not so simple; it also includes forwarders, changed resolvers, caches, middleware that interferes with the query path and/or drops queries that don't look

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-huston-kskroll-sentinel

Well, that's what I get for providing drive-by feedback. Someone pointed me off-list to RFC 8145 and the operational issues with that. I still think that that calls for a better authoritative/resolver telemetry interface, not some client-side thing. On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 1:10 PM, Richard

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-huston-kskroll-sentinel

George, you should know better than to claim that a mechanism that requires resolver updates will have "immediate benefit" :) I do not find this mechanism terribly compelling. It is not useful in the short run, as noted above. And it has the wrong architecture for the long run. What zone

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-huston-kskroll-sentinel

On 16/11/2017, 12:23, tjw ietf typed: > > All > > The author has rolled out a new version addressing comments from the meeting > on Monday, and we feel it’s ready to move this along. > > This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-huston-kskroll-sentinel Support adoption too. Thanks, Daniel

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-huston-kskroll-sentinel

FYI, I'm taking notes of all the issues raised by folks in this thread (thank you!) and will hold the authors accountable in addressing them. tim On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 11:41 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > I would like to see this draft adopted and worked on by the WG.

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-huston-kskroll-sentinel

I would like to see this draft adopted and worked on by the WG. Some of Ed's observations ring true for me as well, but I can see ways forward for all the ones that concern me. --Paul Hoffman ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-huston-kskroll-sentinel

I support adoption and will review the draft. -- Benno On 11/16/2017 09:23 AM, tjw ietf wrote: > All > > The author has rolled out a new version addressing comments from the > meeting on Monday, and we feel it’s ready to move this along. > > This starts a Call for Adoption for

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-huston-kskroll-sentinel

On 16 November 2017 at 00:23, tjw ietf wrote: > All > > The author has rolled out a new version addressing comments from the > meeting on Monday, and we feel it’s ready to move this along. > > This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-huston-kskroll-sentinel > > I support

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-huston-kskroll-sentinel

> the draft uses Vnew Vold Vleg and nonV without description. > that makes it hard for me as I still do not fully understand the idea ... Well it is defined/described in section 3 but I agree that a high level explanation in the terminology section would not hurt. Manu

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-huston-kskroll-sentinel

tjw ietf: The draft is available here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-huston-kskroll-sentinel/ the draft uses Vnew Vold Vleg and nonV without description. that makes it hard for me as I still do not fully understand the idea ... Andreas

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-huston-kskroll-sentinel

I support adoption, will review. Petr Špaček @ CZ.NIC On 16.11.2017 09:23, tjw ietf wrote: > All > > The author has rolled out a new version addressing comments from the > meeting on Monday, and we feel it’s ready to move this along. > > This starts a Call for Adoption for

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-huston-kskroll-sentinel

On Thu, 16 Nov 2017, tjw ietf wrote: The author has rolled out a new version addressing comments from the meeting on Monday, and we feel it’s ready to move this along. This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-huston-kskroll-sentinel The draft is available here:

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-huston-kskroll-sentinel

I support adoption and am willing to contribute and review. > On Nov 16, 2017, at 16:23, tjw ietf wrote: > > All > > The author has rolled out a new version addressing comments from the meeting > on Monday, and we feel it’s ready to move this along. > > This starts a Call

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-huston-kskroll-sentinel

I support adoption of this work. Its a sensible, simple proposal which has immediate benefit, and can be used by anyone to test the ability of their nominated resolver to recognise specific keys, and their trust state. I believe as a community, at large, we need code deployed into the resolvers

[DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-huston-kskroll-sentinel

All The author has rolled out a new version addressing comments from the meeting on Monday, and we feel it’s ready to move this along. This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-huston-kskroll-sentinel The draft is available here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-huston-kskroll-sentinel/