It has been pointed out that the DNS Referral Response Size Issues
I-D should not be left going to final expiry, and I have performed
a new review of the last version, draft-ietf-dnsop-respsize-13.
I only found a small number of remaining editorial nits -- either
formerly overlooked or newly
Paul,
thanks for your expedite response to my review comments.
Please see a few inline follow-up remarks below.
I have deleted all parts that don't need further elaboration.
(1) Section 1
(1.1) 1st paragraph
[...]
b) In a few places, the draft uses very terse forms of precise
Matthijs,
thanks for dealing with my comments so expeditiously.
(This extends to the other review comments as well.)
Please see a few follow-up remarks inline below.
On 11 Apr 2012 15:47:33 +0200, Matthijs Mekking wrote:
Hi,
On 04/05/2012 12:41 AM, Alfred Hönes wrote:
After a long delay, I
Matthijs,
again thanks for your quick and detailed response and action.
A few selected follow-up remark can be found inline below.
On 11 Apr 2012 15:48:26 +0200, Matthijs Mekking wrote:
On 04/05/2012 12:48 AM, Alfred Hönes wrote:
Here we go with part (B); if deemed necessary, please consider
Hello,
in my attempt to catch up with DNS related work in the IETF, I now
also have reviewed the most recent version of the DNSSEC DPS draft,
draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-dps-framework-06.
I did not find any serious issues or inconsistencies in the memo,
and in general, it looks almost ready for
After a long delay, I have revisited the
DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2 I-D and performed
a full review from scratch for the most recent draft version,
draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc4641bis-10.
For convenience, and to accommodate message size limitations,
I have split my review comments into 3
/dnsext/current/msg12403.html
Kind regards,
Alfred Hönes.
--
+++
| TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes | Alfred Hoenes Dipl.-Math., Dipl.-Phys. |
| Gerlinger Strasse 12 | Phone: (+49)7156/9635-0, Fax: -18 |
| D-71254
, please refer to the copy archived in the
DNSEXT list archive:
http://www.IETF.ORG/mail-archive/web/dnsext/current/msg12376.html
Kind regards,
Alfred Hönes.
--
+++
| TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes | Alfred Hoenes Dipl.-Math., Dipl
It is now going to be two weeks since the IANA ITAR has been
factually decommissioned, but still the last entry that has
been removed from the ITAR, the DS record for the ARPA. zone,
has not been placed into the root zone -- as confirmed by
today's TLD DNSSEC Report:
Folks,
Widespread diverse restrictions in devices/implementations/applications
with an expected residual lifetime in the order of a another decade
_are_ technical restrictions, not policy.
All work on DNS I have followed in the recent years always was under
the umbrella of conserving
, this is accomplished and the paragraph here can be dropped.
Kind regards,
Alfred Hönes.
--
+++
| TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes | Alfred Hoenes Dipl.-Math., Dipl.-Phys. |
| Gerlinger Strasse 12 | Phone: (+49)7156/9635-0, Fax: -18
protocols. This document clarifies RFC 2782
regarding the formation and use of the Service Prefix in the owner
name of SRV records, based on the unified IANA registry for Service
Names and Transport Protocol Port Numbers.
Kind regards,
Alfred Hönes
I see my previous concerns fully addressed by the -12.
Thanks Joe for the much better replacement text!
(Admittedly, I've been too conservative, in an attempt to preserve
as much of the previous language in that paragraph as possible.)
So this should now actually be fodder for the IESG to digest,
[[ Apologies for cross-posting; this turns into scope of DNSEXT ... ]]
Since most DNS queries are carried over UDP and hence cannot make
use of RFC 5841, I suggest that we standardize an equivalent EDNS
option, preferably with the same (inofficial) option number of 25.
Then, BIG content
I do think that it belongs in dnsext rather than dnsop - did you
decide to move based on feedback from the working group chairs?
Shane,
at least _my_ argument was an encouragement to consider whether
(or not) the underlying problem could/should be better addressed
under the umbrella of the
At Mon, 8 Mar 2010 09:27:20 -0500 (EST), William F. Maton Sotomayor wrote:
...
Given that the other two drafts on AS112 are already along the path
to getting considered beyond the WGLC, would it be prudent to
generate a third draft specific to these issues?
Nicely said.
This indeed again
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 11:28:36AM +0100, Jaap Akkerhuis wrote:
Antoin says:
So there's one more logical entity involved; most likely this way:
jaap
___
did i miss something? Antoin sez that where?
That's been me, in my
To avoid further confusion on who said ...
snip snip snip ...
The last message was from Jaap Akkerhuis, who said:
Oops, apparently Alfred said so. But who sais what is irrelevat on the
discussion. The oint I was making is that there should not be a fixed
aministrative model.
jaap
At Tue, 2 Mar 2010 16:53:53 +0100, Antoin Verschuren wrote:
The path is usualy even more complicated.
I've identified this stream of contractual relationships in a
registration process:
registry-registrar-reseller-registrant-dns_operator
(some roles may be duplicated or absent, some market
Danny Mayer wrote, in a response sent to me, referring to
Olafur Gudmundsson's text proposal quoted in my posting on Jan 13:
Proposed replacement text:
|2.1. Parameters of a Priming Query
|
| A priming query MUST use a QNAME of . and a QTYPE of NS, QCLASS
| of IN, with RD bit set to 0,
I apologize for cross-posting due to topical overlap.
Please confine follow-up messages to the appropriate list.
In the message to DNSOP regarding draft-ietf-dnsop-resolver-priming-02
archived at
http://www.IETF.ORG/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg07843.html,
Olafur Gudmundsson scratched at
I have studied the draft proposing a new 'regular' naming scheme
for the IN-ADDR.ARPA. and IP6.ARPA. zone,
draft-jabley-reverse-servers-00 ,
and fully support this proposal.
Nits I found in the draft:
(1) Abstract
| ... These zones contain data which facilitates reverse
Interesting News!
There must be a hidden trick to introduce DNS Jumbograms we just
forgot to mention
In a press article [1] entitled
Root zone changes may shake up Net in Africa,
Computerworld wrote:
| From January 2010, ICANN will implement DNSSEC -- using a technique
| also known as
that the writer was female seemed politically
incorrect to me, so I purposely avoided this detail.
On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 07:58:41PM +0100, Alfred Hönes wrote:
Interesting News!
There must be a hidden trick to introduce DNS Jumbograms we just
forgot to mention
In a press article
easily be achieved by
making all root name servers authoritative for the zone containing
the servers' names.
MfG/Kind regards,
Alfred Hönes.
--
+++
| TR-Sys
, and it needs to be fixed before we send it on.
We really need Alfred Hönes to comment on this, as he was the one who
acquired the wrong impression. ...
I'll try, also elaborating on thoughts only exchanged off-list
so far (last week).
First my apologies for not being able to return
complaints from ENUM folks about issues with
DNAME -- or did I miss smething?
Kind regards,
Alfred Hönes.
--
+++
| TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes | Alfred Hoenes Dipl.-Math., Dipl.-Phys. |
| Gerlinger Strasse 12 | Phone: (+49)7156
deploy additional servers for this
purpose and delegate the variant TLDs to these servers.
Even if the variant zones were to be served by the original
root servers, there would have to be delegations (to the same
servers) via NS RRs, insn't it?
Kind regards,
Alfred Hönes
On Oct 16 2009, Chris Thompson wrote:
On Oct 16 2009, Alfred Hönes wrote:
Another point:
The draft is speaking abut DNAME _in_ the root.
According to my surficial knowledge, DNAME RRs 'live'
at the _apex_ of the zone that shall be redirected, not
at the delegation point -- or did I miss
[[ Sorry for cross-posting. ]]
All,
in July the IAB has posted an I-D on IAB Thoughts on Encodings
for Internationalized Domain Names, draft-iab-idn-encoding-00,
and solicited feedback.
That draft is closely related to the DNS related WGs as well.
After very quickly skimming over that memo, it
I already have posted a response to the original analysis by EKR,
which has much overlap with the comments sent to this list by Olaf.
Please see the original URL for the thread there, including
my reasoning about operational impact and human factors:
I'd like to mention the remaining few minor editorials I found
still present in the re-posted AS112 drafts.
[[ No new draft version(s) needed; that can be fixed by the
RFC-Editor or during AUTH48 ! ]]
a) First paragraph of 'Abstract' of both drafts:
Please use common spelling in the prose:
/
^^^ ^^
(6) Section 3.1, 'Event 4'
Please add the missing trailing period.
(7) Section 4, implication #2
s/longer that the key lifetime/longer than the key lifetime/
^^
Kind regards,
Alfred Hönes
Generally: Thumbs up for this version!
However, one legacy nit has been left untouched.
In Section 5, 2nd para:
s/number trust anchors/number of trust anchors/!
^
(No new draft version needed, wait for opportunity to fix!)
Kind regards,
be discussed at IETF, if necessary.
The WG charter has milestones for forwarding to the IESG of all
these documents by September 2007 (!). The WG would gradually
loose its credibility if it proves continued inability to show
progress on chartered work items.
Kind regards,
Alfred Hönes
This tools might be of interest for implementors of DNSSEC,
e.g. the folks wanting to distibute control over the future Root
Zone primary Key Signing Keys between the RIRs and ICANN/IANA.
The new version should hopefully be ready for implementation.
- Forwarded message from IETF I-D
, the milestones for the AS112 docs (mentioned above)
to IESG (for Informational / FYI, i.e. Informational as well)
were set to December/September 2007, respectively.
All that had been confirmed in Dublin, IIRC.
Kind regards,
Alfred Hönes
,
-sm
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Best regards,
Alfred Hönes.
--
+++
| TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes | Alfred Hoenes Dipl.-Math
Hello Peter and Matt,
eventually, I found the time to take a closer look at the
latest version of your Resolver Priming I-D,
draft-ietf-dnsop-resolver-priming-01,
and again would like to submit a few comments, most of which
are editorial in nature.
Items (4) and (7) ff. should be of interest
39 matches
Mail list logo
