Re: [DNSOP] AAAA4Free

[Rob Austein]

At Mon, 11 Apr 2016 15:54:05 +0200, Shane Kerr wrote:
> At 2016-04-08 11:28:12 -0300 Ray Bellis  wrote:
> 
> > May I please remind the WG of draft-bellis-dnsext-multi-qtypes-01
> 
> I note that your idea was about 3 years ago. When it was mentioned,
> Alfred Hönes noted his ideas about his presented 3 years before that.
> My guess is that we could probably go back and every 3 or 4 years find
> a similar proposal. :)

Going back at least to the mid '90s, yes.  Don't recall whether this
came up in the '80s. :)

As I recall, the thing that stopped this every time was lack of
consensus on pesky details such as "to which QNAME does the RCODE
apply when this fails" and "to which QNAME does the AA bit apply?"

It's possible that DNSSEC-aware stub resolvers would provide some
leverage here, since fields like RCODE and the AA bit are somewhat
redundant if one can just check the freaking signatures.

___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] the Chaosnet installed base

[Rob Austein]

At Thu, 17 Mar 2016 08:21:06 +, Jim Reid wrote:
> 
> Though IIRC, a handful of universities dabbled with Hesiod in the
> late 80s or theresabouts and that used the Chaosnet Class. That
> stuff should be long dead and buried by now.

No, that was yet another class, HS.

Hesiod was an MIT Project Athena thing, and arguably was the first
example of "screw it, just encode it in DNS TXT RRs" syndrome.  IIRC
the only RR types ever used in class HS were NS, TXT, and (maybe) A; I
have a vague recollection that they just looked for IN A RRsets
corresponding to the names in the RDATA of HS NS RRs.  And yeah, a few
other universities did pick up Hesiod, but I'd be astonished if there
were any surviving instances today.

___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] [internet-dra...@ietf.org: New Version Notification for draft-sullivan-dns-class-useless-01.txt]

[Rob Austein]

At Tue, 15 Mar 2016 21:24:53 -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 12:20:40PM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > It's more that the registry failed to scoop up all the old definitions.
> 
> Perhaps.  The documentation I could find for chaosnet is pretty thin,
> and STD 13 is pretty clear that A records are only defined for IN.

RFC 882, page 10; RFC 1034, page 13.

___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] Prefixed name spaces and DANE client TLSA

[Rob Austein]

[Commenting only on technical aspect of the name structure --
discussion of whether the namespace is cluttered, pretty, intuitive,
etc, are too abstract for me.  Not making light of user confusion
issues, just recusing on them.]

I would recommend that you think about how any of these proposed
schemes interact with DNS wildcards.  Yes, some people use wildcards
with TLSA RRs, or even with CNAME RRs pointing to TLSA RRs: this
allows one to express "every service on machine foo.example.org uses
the same certificate" concisely.

So if one buys George's analysis of this as a role vs protocol
distinction, the question becomes whether it's more useful to be able
to group by roles or by protocols.  That is, are you more likely to
want to say "all roles for protocol foo use the same certificate",
"all protocols for role foo use the same certificate", or just not
allow any kind of grouping here at all.  The first of these makes the
most sense to me, YMMV.

Wildcards are probably also the main technical reason for caring about
differences between the naming for TLSA and SRV RRs.

___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-perreault-dnsop-stats-mib-00.txt

[Rob Austein]

At Tue, 24 Apr 2012 08:51:46 -0400, Simon Perreault wrote:
 We have just submitted a new draft about a DNS server stats MIB.
 Any feedback would be appreciated!

If you haven't already read RFC 3197, please do so.  It's short.
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] Rude legalese phone call, possibly related to patent infringement

[Rob Austein]

hat wg-co-chair=on

  Ok, that's enough.

  Todd, you have made your point that you believe you have IPR in this
  space.  Noted.

  Now everyone please stop this, immediately.  This is not a forum for
  legal debates, let alone insults, and claims that Todd might or
  might not have against various implementors are between him and the
  implementors, to be settled elsewhere.

  Stop, now.

/hat
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] Confirmation of Chicago decision on draft-anderson-reverse-dns-status

[Rob Austein]

hat wg-co-chair=on

  The 19 August cut-off having passed, and having seen no support for
  WG adoption of draft-anderson-reverse-dns-status from anyone but the
  draft's author, the Chicago decision not to adopt the draft stands.

/hat

___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] Request for IETF69 DNSOP Agenda Items

[Rob Austein]

At Fri, 6 Jul 2007 11:45:25 -0400 (EDT), Dean Anderson wrote:
 
 I would like to have the WG discuss taking up my draft 
 (draft-anderson-reverse-dns-status) as a WG document.
 
 Thanks,
 
   --Dean

hat wg-co-chair=on

  Per Dean's request, I asked those WG participants who were present
  at the Chicago meeting two questions:

  Q1) How many had read Dean's draft?

  A1) 12 people claimed to have read Dean's draft.

  Q2) Of those who had read Dean's draft, how many supported adoption as
  of Dean's draft as a WG document instead of
  draft-ietf-dnsop-reverse-mapping-considerations

  A2) Nobody present in the room supported adoption of Dean's draft.

  As with any decision made at a face to face meeting this is not
  official until confirmed on the mailing list.  So if there is anyone
  who:

  1) Has read Dean's draft, and

  2) Supports WG adoption of Dean's draft,

  please speak up.  The chairs will assume that Dean himself has read
  and supports his own draft.  Anybody else?

  Silence will be taken as confirmation of the tentitive decision from
  the face to face meeting, as will off-topic postings.  So if you
  want the WG to adopt this draft, please say so calmly and
  distinctly.

  Cut-off for this confirmation call will be 00:00:00 UTC on 19 August
  2007.  This is longer than I would ordinarily wait for a
  confirmation call, but many people take holidays in August, and Dean
  has done the right thing here by offering the WG an alternative
  draft for consideration rather than just complaining about the draft
  that he opposes, so I want to make sure that Dean's alternative
  draft gets a fair chance.

/hat

___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

[DNSOP] Confirmation of Chicago decision on draft-anderson-reverse-dns-status

[Rob Austein]

[Resending with fixed subject line, sorry for the duplication --sra]

At Fri, 6 Jul 2007 11:45:25 -0400 (EDT), Dean Anderson wrote:
 
 I would like to have the WG discuss taking up my draft 
 (draft-anderson-reverse-dns-status) as a WG document.
 
 Thanks,
 
   --Dean

hat wg-co-chair=on

  Per Dean's request, I asked those WG participants who were present
  at the Chicago meeting two questions:

  Q1) How many had read Dean's draft?

  A1) 12 people claimed to have read Dean's draft.

  Q2) Of those who had read Dean's draft, how many supported adoption as
  of Dean's draft as a WG document instead of
  draft-ietf-dnsop-reverse-mapping-considerations

  A2) Nobody present in the room supported adoption of Dean's draft.

  As with any decision made at a face to face meeting this is not
  official until confirmed on the mailing list.  So if there is anyone
  who:

  1) Has read Dean's draft, and

  2) Supports WG adoption of Dean's draft,

  please speak up.  The chairs will assume that Dean himself has read
  and supports his own draft.  Anybody else?

  Silence will be taken as confirmation of the tentitive decision from
  the face to face meeting, as will off-topic postings.  So if you
  want the WG to adopt this draft, please say so calmly and
  distinctly.

  Cut-off for this confirmation call will be 00:00:00 UTC on 19 August
  2007.  This is longer than I would ordinarily wait for a
  confirmation call, but many people take holidays in August, and Dean
  has done the right thing here by offering the WG an alternative
  draft for consideration rather than just complaining about the draft
  that he opposes, so I want to make sure that Dean's alternative
  draft gets a fair chance.

/hat

___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] Adopt draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming as WG work item?

[Rob Austein]

At Tue, 12 Jun 2007 20:47:57 -0400, Thierry Moreau wrote:
 
 Now that the draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming is adopted as as WG work 
 item, and that an IPR disclosure has been filed [2], I would request Rob 
 to revisit his (premature) directive regarding this work [3], and 
 retract it. Thanks for looking into this.

hat wg-chair=on

  To date I have seen no support for M. Moreau's suggestion from
  anyone other than M. Moreau, nor have I seen anyone other than
  M. Moreau disagree with my analysis that his suggestion is only
  peripherally related to the topic of Peter's draft.

  If anyone other than M. Moreau -does- wish to see Peter's draft
  incorporate M. Moreau's suggestion, please say so, and state:

  a) Why you think that the topic belongs in this draft, and

  b) Whether M. Moreau's IPR disclosure addressess whatever concerns
 (if any) you might have with respect to the IPR issues related to
 M. Moreau's suggestion (if you have no IPR concerns, say so).

/hat

___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] Adopt draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming as WG work item?

[Rob Austein]

hat wg-chair=on

At Sat, 02 Jun 2007 18:15:04 -0700, I wrote:
 
   This is a call to confirm the decision made at the face to face WG
   meeting in Prague to adopt draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming.
   Discussion in Prague showed reasonably strong support and no
   objections, but as always, decisions at face to face meetings are
   subject to confirmation on the mailing list.
 
   Absent strong objections, I'll ask Peter and his co-author (to be
   appointed, we already have a list of volunteers) to submit the next
   version as draft-ietf-dnsop-resolver-priming-00.
 
   Please send any comments on this subject within the next week, so
   that Peter and his co-author have time to rev the document before
   the 2 July submission cutoff.

  The stated interval having passed without any anyone posting an
  objection to adoption, the decision made in Prague stands.

  We were fortunate to have several volunteers for the role of
  co-author.  From that pool I've selected Matt Larson to work with
  Peter on this draft.

/hat

___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] Adopt draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming as WG work item?

[Rob Austein]

I don't usually bother with refuting slander against me, as I have
better things to do with my time than argue with fools, but one
specific point in a recent posting does call for a response to the WG:

At Wed, 06 Jun 2007 17:34:38 -0400, Thierry Moreau wrote:
 
 I bring your attention to the common affiliation of Mr. Rob Austein and 
 Mr. Paul Vixie to ISC, and the subordination relationship that can be 
 inferred from Mr. Paul Vixie's position as ISC president.

Paul has never tried to control what I do as DNSOP WG co-chair, and
clearly understands the obligations that go with my position.  Paul
also knows me well enough to know that I'd tell him to go to hell if
he ever did try to keep me from performing my duty as I see it, but
the issue has never come up and I don't expect it ever will.

___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] Adopt draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming as WG work item?

[Rob Austein]

At Mon, 04 Jun 2007 13:18:25 -0400, Thierry Moreau wrote:
 
 Is this a genuine invitation for open participation, or are the wg 
 activities subject to the arbitrary censorship directive issued earlier 
 by you (ref 
 http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg05460.html)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_%28negative%29

___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop