Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for "DNS Terminology" (draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis)

Hi, LGTM. I’ve opened a small PR to just update the DoQ references now there is an RFC: https://github.com/ietf-wg-dnsop/draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis/pull/12 Regards Sara. > On 17 Feb 2023, at 15:51, Benno Overeinder wrote: > > Dear DNSOP WG, > > Following the latest consultation with the

Re: [DNSOP] [IANA #1129407] Last Call: (C-DNS: A DNS Packet Capture Format) to Proposed Standard

: C-DNS: A DNS Packet Capture Format >Authors : John Dickinson > Jim Hague > Sara Dickinson > Terry Manderson > John Bond > Filename:

[DNSOP] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-capture-format-09.txt

apture Format >Authors : John Dickinson > Jim Hague > Sara Dickinson > Terry Manderson > John Bond > Filename: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-capture-format-09.txt

Re: [DNSOP] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-capture-format-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

> On 24 Nov 2018, at 03:58, Benjamin Kaduk <mailto:ka...@mit.edu>> wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 12:01:00PM +0000, Sara Dickinson wrote: >>> >>> Section 7.4.1.1.1 >>> >>> Am I parsing the "query-response-hints

Re: [DNSOP] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-capture-format-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

> On 24 Nov 2018, at 03:35, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 01:53:09PM +0000, Sara Dickinson wrote: >> >> >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>> From: Benjamin Kaduk mailto:ka...@mit.edu>> >>> Subject: Benjamin

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-capture-format-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

> From: Paul Hoffman > Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on > draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-capture-format-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) > Date: 27 November 2018 at 14:59:51 GMT > To: Alexey Melnikov > Cc: dnsop , The IESG > > On Nov 27, 2018, at 3:05 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:

Re: [DNSOP] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-capture-format-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

> Begin forwarded message: > > From: Benjamin Kaduk mailto:ka...@mit.edu>> > Subject: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-capture-format-08: > (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) > Date: 19 November 2018 at 00:28:19 GMT > To: "The IESG" mailto:i...@ietf.org>> > Cc:

Re: [DNSOP] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-capture-format-08: (with COMMENT)

> On 21 Nov 2018, at 03:24, Ben Campbell wrote: > > Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-capture-format-08: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines.

Re: [DNSOP] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-capture-format-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

> On 21 Nov 2018, at 17:33, Warren Kumari wrote: > > [ - DNSOP (for clutter), +Heather / RFC Editor for sanity :-P ] > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 9:47 AM Sara Dickinson <mailto:s...@sinodun.com>> wrote: > > >> On 21 Nov 2018, at 14:42, Alexey Melni

Re: [DNSOP] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-capture-format-08: (with COMMENT)

> Begin forwarded message: > > From: Eric Rescorla > Subject: Eric Rescorla's No Objection on > draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-capture-format-08: (with COMMENT) > Date: 21 November 2018 at 02:07:20 GMT > To: "The IESG" > Cc: Tim Wicinski , tjw.i...@gmail.com, dnsop@ietf.org, > dnsop-cha...@ietf.org,

Re: [DNSOP] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-capture-format-08: (with COMMENT)

> On 21 Nov 2018, at 02:09, Adam Roach wrote: > > Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-capture-format-08: No Objection Hi Adam. Many thanks for the review. > -- > COMMENT: >

Re: [DNSOP] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-capture-format-08: (with COMMENT)

> On 21 Nov 2018, at 10:58, Alissa Cooper wrote: > > > >> On Nov 20, 2018, at 9:01 PM, Joe Abley wrote: >> >> Hi Alissa! >> >> On Nov 20, 2018, at 20:18, Alissa Cooper wrote: >> >>> I support Benjamin's first DISCUSS point. In addition to documenting the >>> privacy considerations, I

Re: [DNSOP] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-capture-format-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

> On 21 Nov 2018, at 14:42, Alexey Melnikov wrote: Thanks for the quick response. > > Hi Sara, >>> >>> 1) >>> >>> In 7.4.2: >>> >>> | filter | O | T | "tcpdump" [pcap] style filter for | >>> | | | | input. | >>> >>>

Re: [DNSOP] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-capture-format-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

> On 19 Nov 2018, at 20:37, Alexey Melnikov wrote: Hi Alexey, Thanks for the review. > > Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-capture-format-08: Discuss > -- > DISCUSS: >

Re: [DNSOP] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-capture-format-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

> Begin forwarded message: > > From: Benjamin Kaduk mailto:ka...@mit.edu>> > Subject: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-capture-format-08: > (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) > Date: 19 November 2018 at 00:28:19 GMT > To: "The IESG" mailto:i...@ietf.org>> > Cc:

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-capture-format-08.txt

gt; directories. > This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations WG of the IETF. > >Title : C-DNS: A DNS Packet Capture Format >Authors : John Dickinson > Jim Hague > Sara Dickinson

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-bortzmeyer-rfc7816bis

+1 for adoption and willing to review Sara. > On 25 Jul 2018, at 04:31, Davey Song(宋林健) wrote: > > +1 > > DNS privacy is an important issue. I support this adoption. And I’m willing > to review it. >   <> > Davey > 发件人: DNSOP [mailto:dnsop-boun...@ietf.org ]

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-huque-dnsop-multi-provider-dnssec

I also support adoption of this draft - it is attempting to address a genuine impediment to deploying DNSSEC and I think this group is the right place to work on it. As mentioned at the mic in Montreal, I’d like to see it additionally reflect how the proposals here feed into the process for

Re: [DNSOP] QNAME minimisation on the standards track?

> On 17 Jul 2018, at 17:35, Paul Wouters wrote: > > On Tue, 17 Jul 2018, tjw ietf wrote: > >> Subject: Re: [DNSOP] QNAME minimisation on the standards track? >> I’d like to see a more fleshed out operational considerations section. > > That would be good indeed. Especially with respect to

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis

Hi all, Two questions came up recently when writing the DNS Privacy BCP with respect to terminology (and on the dns-operations list): 1) What do folks think about adding a new definition to this document for a shortened term for DNS-over-TLS? Since we now have DoH I’ve often taken to

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-capture-format-07.txt

Format >Authors : John Dickinson > Jim Hague > Sara Dickinson > Terry Manderson > John Bond > Filename: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-capture-format-07.txt

Re: [DNSOP] Blog Post: DNS over TLS support in Android P Developer Preview

> On 13 Apr 2018, at 20:49, Warren Kumari wrote: > > Hi all, > > As Erik Kline and Ben Schwartz seem to be too modest to toot their own > horn, I'll do it for them: > https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2018/04/dns-over-tls-support-in-android-p.html > >

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-capture-format-06.txt

: C-DNS: A DNS Packet Capture Format >Authors : John Dickinson > Jim Hague > Sara Dickinson > Terry Manderson > John Bond > Filename: draft-ietf-dns

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-capture-format-05.txt

rs : John Dickinson > Jim Hague > Sara Dickinson > Terry Manderson > John Bond > Filename: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-capture-format-05.txt > Pages : 62 >

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-capture-format-04.txt

aft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations WG of the IETF. > >Title : C-DNS: A DNS Packet Capture Format >Authors : John Dickinson > Jim Hague > Sara Dickinson >

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal-04.txt

> >Title : DNS Stateful Operations >Authors : Ray Bellis > Stuart Cheshire > John Dickinson > Sara Dickinson > Allison Mankin > To

Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption: draft-kristoff-dnsop-dns-tcp-requirements

> On 25 May 2017, at 18:00, John Kristoff wrote: > > >> Section 2: I think it might be useful to include a section in section >> 2 describing the fact that the lack of, or very limited >> implementation of TCP also fed the perception that it was a security >> risk. > > The

Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption: draft-kristoff-dnsop-dns-tcp-requirements

> On 11 May 2017, at 11:57, tjw ietf wrote: > This starts a Call for Adoption for: draft-kristoff-dnsop-dns-tcp-requirements > > The draft is available here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kristoff-dnsop-dns-tcp-requirements/ >

Re: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-kristoff-dnsop-dns-tcp-requirements in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

> On 6 Apr 2017, at 19:42, Bob Harold wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 4:34 PM, IETF Secretariat > > > wrote: > > The DNSOP WG has placed draft-kristoff-dnsop-dns-tcp-requirements in > state >

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-capture-format-01.txt

gt; directories. > This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations of the IETF. > >Title : C-DNS: A DNS Packet Capture Format >Authors : John Dickinson > Jim Hague > Sara Dickinson >

Re: [DNSOP] Soliciting feedback for draft-kristoff-dnsop-dns-tcp-requirements

> On 21 Oct 2016, at 16:46, Paul Hoffman wrote: > > On 16 Oct 2016, at 8:22, John Kristoff wrote: > >> If I could trouble you to consider reviewing this and provide any >> comments you might have about it, that would be appreciated. Thank you. >> >> DNS Transport over

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-capture-format-00.txt

gt; directories. > This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations of the IETF. > >Title : C-DNS: A DNS Packet Capture Format >Authors : John Dickinson > Jim Hague > Sara Dickinson

Re: [DNSOP] CBOR-DNS compression is 30% the size of gzip compressed PCAP

> On 15 Nov 2016, at 14:59, George Michaelson wrote: > > Terry clarified, the 30% size compression is not from uncompressed, > but is the comparision with compressed gzip pcap. > > So, compressed DNS-CBOR is *significantly* smaller than pcap.gz Yup - sorry if I wasn’t clear

Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-dickinson-dnsop-dns-capture-format-00.txt

> On 1 Nov 2016, at 08:12, Jerry Lundström <je...@dns-oarc.net> wrote: > > Hi Sara, > > On 10/31/16 18:22, Sara Dickinson wrote: >> https://github.com/dns-stats/draft-dns-capture-format >> <https://github.com/dns-stats/draft-dns-capture-format&g

[DNSOP] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-dickinson-dnsop-dns-capture-format-00.txt

d message: > > From: internet-dra...@ietf.org > Subject: New Version Notification for > draft-dickinson-dnsop-dns-capture-format-00.txt > Date: 31 October 2016 at 18:09:23 GMT > To: "John Dickinson" <j...@sinodun.com>, "John Bond" <john.b...@icann.org&

Re: [DNSOP] Possible issues with DNS over HTTP wire format draft

> On 8 Aug 2016, at 14:41, Shane Kerr wrote: > > Hello, > > As for a requirement for TLS... the document currently says that > implementers SHOULD use TLS. My own feeling is that this should be > enough; apparently the recommendation to require TLS was made in the >

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-tcp-keepalive-06.txt

> On 22 Feb 2016, at 23:24, Mark Andrews wrote: > > > Strictly speaking the additional section can have anything the > server feels is relevent including a OPT record (this in RFC 1034). > Clients are expected to cope with anything added to the additional > section. > > 6.

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-tcp-keepalive-06.txt

> On 22 Feb 2016, at 18:41, Bob Harold wrote: > > I am not understanding one thing. > > 3.3.2. Sending Responses > > Says that a server "that receives a query ... without the edns-tcp-keepalive > option ... MAY include the edns-tcp-keepalive option in the response" > >

Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-tcp-keepalive-05

> On 26 Jan 2016, at 07:53, joel jaeggli wrote: > >> >> For DNS-over-DTLS-over-UDP, we should not need to negotiate the >> client or server capability to send multiple DNS queries over the >> same DTLS connection; the mere act of negotiating DTLS indicates the >> ability to

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis-06.txt

thors : John Dickinson > Sara Dickinson > Ray Bellis > Allison Mankin > Duane Wessels > Filename: draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis-06.txt > Pages : 21 &g

Re: [DNSOP] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-tcp-keepalive-04: (with COMMENT)

> On 6 Jan 2016, at 07:57, Barry Leiba wrote: > > Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-tcp-keepalive-04: No Objection > > -- > COMMENT: >

Re: [DNSOP] Martin Stiemerling's Yes on draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis-05: (with COMMENT)

> On 5 Jan 2016, at 22:11, Martin Stiemerling wrote: > > -- > COMMENT: > -- > > One comment and request for clarification: > > In the

Re: [DNSOP] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis-05: (with COMMENT)

> On 6 Jan 2016, at 08:21, Barry Leiba wrote: > > -- Section 5 -- > > This requirement is hereby relaxed. Stub resolvers and recursive > resolvers MAY elect to send either TCP or UDP queries depending on > local operational reasons. TCP MAY be used before

Re: [DNSOP] Martin Stiemerling's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-tcp-keepalive-04: (with COMMENT)

> On 5 Jan 2016, at 22:29, Martin Stiemerling wrote: > > > Two comments for your considerations: > > 1) Section 3.3.2 is talking about this "It is reasonable for this value > to change [...] or in consideration of intermediary behaviour (for > example TCP middleboxes or

Re: [DNSOP] Gen-ART telechat review of draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-tcp-keepalive-04

> On 4 Jan 2016, at 18:32, Brian E Carpenter > wrote: > > On 04/01/2016 22:38, sara wrote: >> >>> On 31 Dec 2015, at 22:11, Brian E Carpenter >>> wrote: >>> >>> Still "Ready with issues" pending a new version. >> >> Hi Brian, >>

Re: [DNSOP] Brian Haberman's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-tcp-keepalive-04: (with DISCUSS)

> On 4 Jan 2016, at 18:18, Brian Haberman wrote: > > -- > DISCUSS: > -- > > I support the publication of this document, but I have a

Re: [DNSOP] OPS-DIR review of draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-tcp-keepalive-04

> On 23 Dec 2015, at 13:30, Sara Dickinson <s...@sinodun.com> wrote: >> >> [JM] Sorry, this is my fault on the confusion on the previous two >> comments - I was actually still confused by section 3.2.1 (not 3.3.2) >> paragraph 3, why a DNS client would f

Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis-04.txt

p-5966bis-04.txt > has been successfully submitted by Sara Dickinson and posted to the > IETF repository. > > Name: draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis > Revision: 04 > Title:DNS Transport over TCP - Implementation Requirements > Document date:2015-11

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-tcp-keepalive

> On 15 Oct 2015, at 18:00, 神明達哉 wrote: > > I see your point. But whether the updated notification from the > server works relies on whether the client includes an OPT RR in > subsequent queries, ambiguity on the latter can easily lead to > interoperability problem. So I

[DNSOP] Fwd: Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis

> Begin forwarded message: > > From: 神明達哉 <jin...@wide.ad.jp> > Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis > Date: 15 October 2015 01:52:09 BST > To: Sara Dickinson <s...@sinodun.com> > Cc: Joe Abley <jab...@hopcount.ca>, dns

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-tcp-keepalive

> On 7 Oct 2015, at 18:17, 神明達哉 wrote: > > > I've read the 03 version of draft. It's very well written and I've > not found any critical technical issues. So I basically think it's > ready to ship. > Hi, Many thanks for the review. > I have a couple of minor comments,

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis

> On 12 Oct 2015, at 11:57, Tony Finch wrote: > > Tim Wicinski wrote: >> >> This starts a Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis > > I have re-read the draft and it looks good to me. Thanks. > > A couple of suggestions for section 7: > >

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis

> On 9 Oct 2015, at 20:53, Joe Abley wrote: Joe, Thanks for the review. > I made a few notes as I read through, but it would be entirely fine with me > if they were all ignored. All your suggested rewordings improve the document and have been committed - thanks. >

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis

> On 12 Oct 2015, at 13:36, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 01:09:38PM +0100, > sara wrote > a message of 107 lines which said: > >> So under normal circumstances matching on just the Message ID should >> be sufficient for TCP,

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis-03.txt

Authors : John Dickinson > Sara Dickinson > Ray Bellis > Allison Mankin > Duane Wessels > Filename: draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis-03.txt > Pages

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

On 3 Aug 2015, at 22:14, Wessels, Duane dwess...@verisign.com wrote: I offered to review this document during the WG meeting in Prague… Hi Duane, Many thanks for the detailed review. They are all useful comments that will be added to the document. 3.1. Option Format The

[DNSOP] Review of draft-wing-dprive-dnsodtls-01

Hi, Here are some comments on the draft-wing-dprive-dnsodtls-01 draft (some of which echo comments at the mic from the recent working group meeting). General comments: --- 1) My major comment is that I don’t think the current draft tackles the problem of truncation

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis-02.txt

On 20 Jul 2015, at 12:19, Petr Spacek pspa...@redhat.com wrote: The -02 version of the draft makes a lot of sense to me, here are only two nits: Many thanks for the review. On 20 Jul 2015, at 12:19, Petr Spacek pspa...@redhat.com wrote: Section 5 says: ... TCP should be considered

Re: [DNSOP] comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-03

On 16 Jul 2015, at 03:15, Paul Hoffman paul.hoff...@vpnc.org mailto:paul.hoff...@vpnc.org wrote: On 15 Jul 2015, at 17:33, Andrew Sullivan wrote: Just on this issue, and speaking only for myself (but as one of the people behind this document), my view is that this WG has historically