Hi dnsop list
I sent an email to v6ops to notify my draft draft-momoka-dnsop-3901bis
yesterday.
Geoff gave very informative concerns and this started a discussion on the
thread on v6ops that should have been on the DNSOP list so I am sending
part of the discussion here.
the whole thread can be
Dear DNSOP,
(This is mainly for those who did not attend today's DNSOP session in Prague.)
The chairs announced today that the below WGLC meant to say that some reactions
in support of this draft are needed for the document to move forward. (In
contrast to only asking for objections.)
So, if
It does seem like it would be good to document the "Authoritative Forwarding
Proxy" use-case as it is more common. There are a number of commercial
services doing this now, both for performance, DDoS defense, and other
use-cases.
An important thing we really should define is safeguards for loop
Here’s an analysis of measurement of issues with IPv6 and DNS resolvers from a
few years
ago...https://www.potaroo.net/presentations/2017-09-29-xtn-hdrs-dns.pdf
I have not returned to this measurement for some years as there appeared to be
little interest in the results right up until now!
If
On Fri, 10 Nov 2023, John R Levine wrote:
Subject: [DNSOP] QNAME minimization is bad
Well, not always bad but sometimes.
A bit misleading subject :P
I'd like to write a draft that updates RFC 9156 by describing situations like
this that caches could recognize and avoid useless churn, added
Hi Peter, hi all,
Am 10.11.2023 um 13:46 schrieb Peter Thomassen:
Dear DNSOP,
(This is mainly for those who did not attend today's DNSOP session in
Prague.)
The chairs announced today that the below WGLC meant to say that some
reactions in support of this draft are needed for the document
Well, not always bad but sometimes.
A friend of mine who works on DNSBLs wrote yesterday (quite by
coincidence, unware that there's a meeting this week) asking if anyone has
thought about this problem: DNSBLs have the same form as rDNS, IPv4 names
all start with four labels containing digits,
Thank you for writing this up! I think this is long-overdue
and I'd be supportive of the dnsop working group adopting this.
(It seems to make more sense for me to do this in dnsop while keeping v6ops
informed.)
We likely will want to cover the concerns that Geoff raises around
fragmentation,
but
Moin!
On 10 Nov 2023, at 13:33, Geoff Huston wrote:
> Here’s an analysis of measurement of issues with IPv6 and DNS resolvers from
> a few years
> ago...https://www.potaroo.net/presentations/2017-09-29-xtn-hdrs-dns.pdf
>
> I have not returned to this measurement for some years as there
Here is the same data on EDNS buffer size setting from yesterday, weighed by
use:
EDNS buffer size for queries over IPv4
4096 38.437%
1232 24.888%
1400 17.489
1472 5.976%
1452 4.427%
1220 3.243%
512 2.277%
None 0.665%
Old habits die hard - 38% of queries use 4096
Is V6 any different?
4096
> On Nov 10, 2023, at 4:46 AM, Peter Thomassen wrote:
>
> (This is mainly for those who did not attend today's DNSOP session in Prague.)
>
> The chairs announced today that the below WGLC meant to say that some
> reactions in support of this draft are needed for the document to move
>
On Nov 10, 2023, at 14:23, Paul Wouters wrote:
>
>> I'd like to write a draft that updates RFC 9156 by describing situations
>> like this that caches could recognize and avoid useless churn, added to
>> section 2.3 which already suggests special casing underscored labels.
>
> Couldn't the
Hi,
I support the dnssec bootstrapping method as proposed
draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-bootstrapping. .CA is looking at an implementation.
Jacques
CLASSIFICATION:CONFIDENTIAL
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
On 11/10/2023, Paul Wouters wrote:
On Fri, 10 Nov 2023, John R Levine wrote:
Subject: [DNSOP] QNAME minimization is bad
Well, not always bad but sometimes.
A bit misleading subject :P
I'd like to write a draft that updates RFC 9156 by describing
situations like this that caches could
we need Q-M, since without it NXDOMAIN is ambiguous. a full resolver
("recursive nameserver") who looks up wrong2.wrong1 deserves to know
that wrong1 doesn't exist so that it need not ask the root name servers
about wrong3.wrong1. whatever ambiguities may come from Q-M will have a
lower cost
On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 01:26:36PM +0100,
John R Levine wrote
a message of 39 lines which said:
> asking if anyone has
> thought about this problem:
The dnsop working group, may be :-) This issue is mentioned in RFC
9156, section 2.3, which documents ways to address it.
> I'd like to write
On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 6:45 AM Denny Watson wrote:
> On 11/10/2023, Paul Wouters wrote:
> > On Fri, 10 Nov 2023, John R Levine wrote:
> >
> >> Subject: [DNSOP] QNAME minimization is bad
> >>
> >> Well, not always bad but sometimes.
> >
> > A bit misleading subject :P
> >
> >> I'd like to write
On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 11:30 AM Denny Watson wrote:
> On 11/10/2023, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 02:45:08PM +,
> > Denny Watson wrote
> > a message of 50 lines which said:
> >
> >> One thing that is of interest to me; There appears to be no way for
> >> the
I'd like to write a draft that updates RFC 9156 by describing
situations like this that caches could recognize and avoid useless
churn, added to section 2.3 which already suggests special casing
underscored labels.
I must confess that I do not see what is suggested in this thread
which is not
On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 02:45:08PM +,
Denny Watson wrote
a message of 50 lines which said:
> One thing that is of interest to me; There appears to be no way for
> the owner of the dataset being queried (they should understand what
> exists in their zones better than anyone else) to signal
On 11/10/2023, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 02:45:08PM +,
Denny Watson wrote
a message of 50 lines which said:
One thing that is of interest to me; There appears to be no way for
the owner of the dataset being queried (they should understand what
exists in their
It appears that Paul Wouters said:
>On Fri, 10 Nov 2023, John R Levine wrote:
>
>> Subject: [DNSOP] QNAME minimization is bad
>>
>> Well, not always bad but sometimes.
>
>A bit misleading subject :P
It seems to have done the trick.
>> I'd like to write a draft that updates RFC 9156 by
Hi!
This morning I presented two drafts in DNSOP:
- https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-core-dns-over-coap/, DNS
over CoAP (currently discussed in core WG), and
- https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lenders-dns-cbor/, CBOR of DNS
Messages (currently discussed in cbor WG)
We would
I support advancing this document.
Brian Dickson (speaking only for myself)
On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 4:46 AM Peter Thomassen wrote:
> Dear DNSOP,
>
> (This is mainly for those who did not attend today's DNSOP session in
> Prague.)
>
> The chairs announced today that the below WGLC meant to say
John,
On Nov 10, 2023, at 11:55 AM, John Levine wrote:
> DNSBLs have been around a lot longer than QNAME minimization.
Not sure that’s relevant — I presume you’re not suggesting DNSBLs are a
predominant use of the DNS.
> They
> work(ed) fine without minimization and I don't think it is
On 10Nov23, Paul Wouters apparently wrote:
> > I'd like to write a draft that updates RFC 9156 by describing situations
> > like this that caches could recognize and avoid useless churn, added to
> > section 2.3 which already suggests special casing underscored labels.
>
> Couldn't the RBL's add
Sent from my iPhone
> On Nov 10, 2023, at 12:02 PM, John R Levine wrote:
>
>
>>
>>> I'd like to write a draft that updates RFC 9156 by describing
>>> situations like this that caches could recognize and avoid useless
>>> churn, added to section 2.3 which already suggests special casing
Martine
First thanks for the presentation this morning. Second, I am your DNS
Directorate reviewer for draft-ietf-core-dns-over-coap,
and I realize I owe your latest versions a review. Geoff/Jim - I wonder if
we should have a second pair of eyes on this document?
While I am not one of the DNS
My point was not really related to EDNS.
My main point is that the last time someone attempted to write a new format for
DNS messages in DNSOP, it ended up in the Independent Stream, because
standardizing these things isn't easy. There are a lot of opinions and
considerations.
One of the key
On 10 Nov 2023, at 21:26, Brian Dickson wrote:
> Perhaps the DNSBL operators could individually or collectively operate
> resolvers which do that exact thing?
I'm not sure why the answer isn't "MTAs should run local resolvers configured
in ways that best suit them".
This seems like obvious
On Nov 10, 2023, at 21:41, David Conrad wrote:
>
> John,
>
> On Nov 10, 2023, at 11:55 AM, John Levine wrote:
>> DNSBLs have been around a lot longer than QNAME minimization.
>
> Not sure that’s relevant — I presume you’re not suggesting DNSBLs are a
> predominant use of the DNS.
DNSBLs are
31 matches
Mail list logo
