Re: [DNSOP] Terry Manderson's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-roadblock-avoidance-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

"Terry Manderson" writes: > Abstract: s/outline potential/outlines potential/ Hmm. My version already has that. Yay! > s1.1 > second bullet, perhaps you could just say "not DNSSEC aware" to be > parsimonious with words > third bullet '"middle-boxes" actively'?

[DNSOP] Agenda Uploaded

All I've updated the agenda and pushed a new version up. You can see them here: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/agenda/agenda-96-dnsop or the original: https://github.com/DNSOP/dnsop-materials/blob/master/dnsop-ietf96/dnsop-ietf96-agenda.md There will be some tweaks to it, but it's

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-key-tag-02.txt

Greetings again; I'm the new co-author on this draft. Based on the WG discussion where a bunch of us wanted to use EDNS0 and a bunch of us wanted to use queries, the authors tentatively decided that the best way to go forwards is to put both methods in the draft. After all, a motivated

[DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-key-tag-02.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations of the IETF. Title : Signaling Trust Anchor Knowledge in DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC) Authors : Duane Wessels

Re: [DNSOP] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-roadblock-avoidance-04: (with COMMENT)

"Mirja Kuehlewind" writes: > 1) Shouldn't/can't section 3.1.13. (UDP size limits) also specify a >real test? I don't think it's possible to easily test this, sadly, without a target set containing different deterministic response sizes. We could probably strike the

Re: [DNSOP] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-roadblock-avoidance-04: (with COMMENT)

"Benoit Claise" writes: > Here is Eric Vyncke's (pretty knowledgeable security expert) OPS DIR > review (you'll see that it's in line with Terry's DISCUSS point): > Based on my operational experience, I have seen multiple DNSSEC packets > dropped by firewalls because they try

Re: [DNSOP] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-roadblock-avoidance-04: (with COMMENT)

Thanks for the response. Discussion inline, with things that appear to be addressed removed. Ben. On 8 Jul 2016, at 16:26, Wes Hardaker wrote: "Ben Campbell" writes: [...] - 1.2, 2nd paragraph: Is "full non-support" effectively different from "non-support" in this

Re: [DNSOP] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-roadblock-avoidance-04: (with COMMENT)

Hi, Wes, On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 4:05 PM, Wes Hardaker wrote: > "Spencer Dawkins" writes: > > > Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for > > draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-roadblock-avoidance-04: No Objection > > > > When

Re: [DNSOP] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-roadblock-avoidance-04: (with COMMENT)

"Ben Campbell" writes: > - I support Terry's discuss. Fixed (see response to Terry) > - 1.2, 2nd paragraph: Is "full non-support" effectively different from > "non-support" in this context? CHanged to "Detecting complete lack of support", which I hope works for you? > Do we

[DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-01.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations of the IETF. Title : DNS Terminology Authors : Paul Hoffman Andrew Sullivan

Re: [DNSOP] Terry Manderson's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-roadblock-avoidance-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

"Terry Manderson" writes: > In section 4, the second "Note", I urge you to reconsider using the term > "crap-ware", and words "stupid", "crap".. these make this document look > and sound very poor for an IETF published document. Knowing the > intelligence of the

Re: [DNSOP] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-roadblock-avoidance-04: (with COMMENT)

"Alexey Melnikov" writes: > I think this is a useful document, but it is not entirely clear to me how > well content of this document will age with time. That's the problem with any BCP, certainly. But point taken. We can make it historic when the ubiquitous deployment

Re: [DNSOP] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-roadblock-avoidance-04: (with COMMENT)

"Spencer Dawkins" writes: > Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-roadblock-avoidance-04: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-roadblock-avoidance-04.txt

Paul Wouters writes: > Should item 3. be "if the answer is INSECURE" instead of "If the query > is INSECURE" ? Good catch, fixed. > And should it be "w/o the DO and AD bit set" instead of "w/o the AD > bit set" ? I think not, because if the DO bit was set and you understand it

[DNSOP] Gen-art LC review: draft-ietf-dnsop-maintain-ds-03

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at

[DNSOP] FW: New Version Notification for draft-woodworth-bulk-rr-02.txt

All, A new version of this draft has been submitted. I've included a new section regarding some implications of this type of RR. As always, all comments are welcome. Regards, John > > > A new version of I-D, draft-woodworth-bulk-rr-02.txt has been successfully > submitted > by John

[DNSOP] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-tldr-sutld-ps-02.txt

Earlier this week I posted a -01 version of draft-tldr-sutld-01. Today I posted a new version that I believe takes into account and addresses all the comments I have received to date (thanks to everyone who offered comments!). I am hoping that we can discuss this document in Berlin.

Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-00

Thanks for the comments. We are actually turning in a new draft today (with a bunch of changes), and intend to get much more active on this starting right about... now. --Paul Hoffman ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org

[DNSOP] Fw: New Version Notification for draft-shane-dns-manifesto-00.txt

Hello, I've put together some high-level thoughts I had about DNS. I started thinking about this a year or so ago, and typed up an earlier version 9 months ago, but wasn't sure what to do with it. I've been struggling to figure out how to actually make the types of changes that I am thinking of

[DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-00

Hi, A couple of thoughts as I diligently read all the WG meeting material… s/gotten/acquired/ Because of its unusual nature I think a definition for the NSEC3PARAM RR would be useful. Also I guess we need to add catalog zones. regards John John Dickinson http://sinodun.com Sinodun