Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-huston-kskroll-sentinel

Well, that's what I get for providing drive-by feedback. Someone pointed me off-list to RFC 8145 and the operational issues with that. I still think that that calls for a better authoritative/resolver telemetry interface, not some client-side thing. On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 1:10 PM, Richard

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-huston-kskroll-sentinel

George, you should know better than to claim that a mechanism that requires resolver updates will have "immediate benefit" :) I do not find this mechanism terribly compelling. It is not useful in the short run, as noted above. And it has the wrong architecture for the long run. What zone

Re: [DNSOP] `localhost` and DNS.

On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 5:05 AM, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Nov 15, 2017, at 10:51 PM, Mike West wrote: > > Skimming through the recording of Monday's meeting > > (starting > at around

Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption - draft-west-let-localhost-be-localhost

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 8:54 AM, Tony Finch wrote: > Paul Vixie wrote: > > > > while i've generally included a localhost.$ORIGIN A RR in zones that > appear in > > my stub resolver search lists, in order that "localhost" be found, > > I agree with the rest of

Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption - draft-west-let-localhost-be-localhost

I am strongly in support of the WG adopting this draft. It will allow applications to deliver a better developer experience and higher security. As Ted notes, there is a possibility of breakage. If something on a host is relying on an external resolver to provide localhost resolution in

Re: [DNSOP] Status of "let localhost be localhost"?

On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 2:36 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On 12 Aug 2017, at 10:14, Ted Lemon wrote: > > El 12 ag 2017, a les 13:09, John Levine va escriure: >> >>> Right. That's why it's long past time that we make it clear that >>> non-broken resolvers at

Re: [DNSOP] Status of "let localhost be localhost"?

On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 4:27 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Aug 2, 2017, at 2:02 PM, Robert Edmonds wrote: > > draft-west-let-localhost-be-localhost-03 upgrades the requirements in > RFC 6761 §6.3 to make them much stricter, for all applications, > converting

Re: [DNSOP] Status of "let localhost be localhost"?

On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 9:18 AM, Richard Barnes <r...@ipv.sx> wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Ted Lemon <mel...@fugue.com> wrote: > >> On Aug 2, 2017, at 9:02 AM, Richard Barnes <r...@ipv.sx> wrote: >> >> But of course having IP

Re: [DNSOP] Status of "let localhost be localhost"?

On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Ted Lemon <mel...@fugue.com> wrote: > On Aug 2, 2017, at 9:02 AM, Richard Barnes <r...@ipv.sx> wrote: > > But of course having IP addresses in URLs is both a PITA for developers > and an anti-pattern more generally. > &g

Re: [DNSOP] Status of "let localhost be localhost"?

On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 8:48 AM, Ted Lemon <mel...@fugue.com> wrote: > On Aug 2, 2017, at 8:40 AM, Richard Barnes <r...@ipv.sx> wrote: > > The underlying need here is that application software would like to make > use of the fact that it is connecting to "localho

Re: [DNSOP] Status of "let localhost be localhost"?

On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 6:39 AM, william manning wrote: > localhost is just a string, like www or mail or supralingua. A DNS > operator may > chose to map any given string to any given IP address. restricting ::1 > so that it never leaves > the host is pretty

Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt (The .onion Special-Use Domain Name) to Proposed Standard

On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 4:20 PM, Eliot Lear l...@cisco.com wrote: I have no particular objection to the concept here, but I do have a question about one sentence in the draft. Section 1 states: Like Top-Level Domain Names, .onion addresses can have an arbitrary number of subdomain

Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt (The .onion Special-Use Domain Name) to Proposed Standard

On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 12:44 AM, Joe Hildebrand hil...@cursive.net wrote: On 15 Jul 2015, at 5:37, David Conrad wrote: I try to be pragmatic. Given I do not believe that refusing to put ONION in the special names registry will stop the use of .ONION, the size of the installed base of TOR

Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt (The .onion Special-Use Domain Name) to Proposed Standard

On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 5:52 PM, Hugo Maxwell Connery h...@env.dtu.dk wrote: Or to re-quote Paul Vixie: what the internet should be doing is defining escape mechanisms for non-internet systems, rather than saying we are the only thing you can use RFC 6761 is that mechanism for DNS. Nice

Re: [DNSOP] More after onion? was Re: Some distinctions and a request

On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Warren Kumari war...@kumari.net wrote: On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Suzanne Woolf suzworldw...@gmail.com wrote: Ed, First-- apologies for the misunderstanding. On Jul 1, 2015, at 9:53 AM, Edward Lewis edward.le...@icann.org wrote: Trying to be more

Re: [DNSOP] More after onion? was Re: Some distinctions and a request

On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 2:54 PM, Edward Lewis edward.le...@icann.org wrote: On 7/1/15, 14:26, Richard Barnes r...@ipv.sx wrote: We do our best work when we do engineering, not rule-making. Let's engineer a solution here that's more appealing than squatting. For my money, alt-TLD looks about

Re: [DNSOP] Adoption and Working Group Last Call for draft-appelbaum-dnsop-onion-tld

On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 3:20 PM, John R Levine jo...@taugh.com wrote: It would be a shame for them to nitpick the rules because special purpose namespace != TLD? Is the CAB really likely to waste its time on that? I don't know them, I have no idea. I'd hope they had better things to worry

Re: [DNSOP] Adoption and Working Group Last Call for draft-appelbaum-dnsop-onion-tld

tl;dr: Ship it. On adoption: I agree that we should adopt this document. On WGLC: I have reviewed this document, and I think it's generally in fine shape to send to the IESG. I have included a few comments below, but they're mostly editorial. The only issue of any substance is that I would

Re: [DNSOP] A comparison of IANA Considerations for .onion

On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Tom Ritter t...@ritter.vg wrote: On 12 May 2015 at 07:23, Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com wrote: If the Tor Browser has its own resolver that is used just by it and that is not a separate service installed with the expectation that other clients

Re: [DNSOP] A comparison of IANA Considerations for .onion

On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 9:17 AM, hellekin helle...@gnu.org wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 05/12/2015 09:23 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: Is your complaint that appelbaum-dnsop-onion reads to you as though such special applications are the only way to do this? If

Re: [DNSOP] A comparison of IANA Considerations for .onion

On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 7:21 PM, Alec Muffett al...@fb.com wrote: Hi Hellekin! Since Alec Muffett seems to have better things to do I'm sorry if you've been waiting for my input - I am not the primary author of the document; Jacob Appelbaum's name is in the document's title for a good