Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-let-localhost-be-localhost-02

2018-02-02 Thread Andrew Sullivan
On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 08:46:01PM -0500, Joe Abley wrote: > > Can we take a brief pause to acknowledge that "the DNS" as a phrase is highly > ambiguous Yes. > and think about whether we mean the protocol, I mean this and > any particular installation or the namespace (and if so, which one,

Re: [DNSOP] A conversational description of sentinel.

2018-02-02 Thread Warren Kumari
On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 4:41 AM, Petr Špaček wrote: > On 2.2.2018 09:32, Mark Andrews wrote: >> This isn’t about whether name servers load A records with non LDH names >> as they all can. >> >> The real question is do the name lookup api’s in the web browsers barf >> on non

[DNSOP] WGLC session-state-signal comments

2018-02-02 Thread Edward Lewis
(Due to weirdness with email, the WGLC announcement for me came on DNSSD and not DNSOP. Shoulder shrug - something to debug for later.) I was told of this last call: referring to the document at https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal-05 Overall - the approach looks

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-let-localhost-be-localhost-02

2018-02-02 Thread Bob Harold
On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 4:26 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Feb 1, 2018, at 2:48 PM, Andrew Sullivan > wrote: > > As a general principle, when what the RFC says to do is not the right > thing to do, the solution is to update the RFC, not to ignore the

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call - draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal

2018-02-02 Thread Paul Hoffman
The current draft is hand-wavy when it comes to which transports DSO can run on. Section 2 says "such as": The term "connection" means a bidirectional byte stream of reliable, in-order messages, such as provided by using DNS over TCP [RFC1035][RFC7766] or DNS over TLS [RFC7858].

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-let-localhost-be-localhost-02

2018-02-02 Thread Mark Andrews
The problem is that search lists are being applied when “localhost” is being entered into name lookup APIs and is being matched against localhost.example which isn’t expected to to a address on the current machine and that the search list may be auto constructed or come from a untrusted

Re: [DNSOP] the ??-- thing (was Re: I-D Action: draft-huston-kskroll-sentinel-04.txt)

2018-02-02 Thread Bob Harold
On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 4:37 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On 1 Feb 2018, at 13:20, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > > It seems plain therefore that a registry of in-band in-label prefixes >> ought to be created, so that instead of heuristics in IDNA2008 we >> could tell people to use

Re: [DNSOP] A conversational description of sentinel.

2018-02-02 Thread Mark Andrews
This isn’t about whether name servers load A records with non LDH names as they all can. The real question is do the name lookup api’s in the web browsers barf on non IDN, non LDH names since that is the mechanism being proposed for people to test this. Mark > On 2 Feb 2018, at 6:50 pm, Petr

Re: [DNSOP] A conversational description of sentinel.

2018-02-02 Thread Ray Bellis
On 02/02/2018 08:32, Mark Andrews wrote: > The real question is do the name lookup api’s in the web browsers barf > on non IDN, non LDH names since that is the mechanism being proposed > for people to test this. +1 - that's my concern too. The browsers that refuse to accept an underscore

Re: [DNSOP] A conversational description of sentinel.

2018-02-02 Thread Petr Špaček
On 2.2.2018 09:32, Mark Andrews wrote: > This isn’t about whether name servers load A records with non LDH names > as they all can. > > The real question is do the name lookup api’s in the web browsers barf > on non IDN, non LDH names since that is the mechanism being proposed > for people to