[DNSOP] Editorial / OCD nit on draft-ietf-dnsop-generalized-notify

Hey there authors and WG, While reading draft-ietf-dnsop-generalized-notify - "Generalized DNS Notifications" I noticed (in the Abstract): "This document extends the use of DNS NOTIFY ([RFC1996] beyond conventional zone

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-bootstrapping-08.txt

Thank you, I have requested IETF LC be started on this document. W On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 9:03 AM, Peter Thomassen wrote: > Dear DNSOP, > > Here's a quick change log, all are editorial: > > - Editorial changes from AD Review > - Updated implementation section > - Change capitalization of

Re: [DNSOP] Demo of Github issues for tracking documents and next steps..

Gah…. Apologies all, autocomplete fail — turns out "dnsop-chairs" starts with "dnsop". Sorry for the noise, W On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 2:36 PM, Warren Kumari wrote: > Heyya chairs, > > I futzed some more with the demo GH issue tracker I created on the call,

[DNSOP] Demo of Github issues for tracking documents and next steps..

Heyya chairs, I futzed some more with the demo GH issue tracker I created on the call, and invited you to the repo: https://github.com/wkumari/Temp-DNSOP_Doc_Tracker/issues . I did also play more with github projects (and some other project / ticket things), but they don't really looks like they

[DNSOP] AD Review of: draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-bootstrapping

Hi there, authors (and WG), Thank you for this document, I found it clear, useful, and an easy read. I do have a few comments/nits; addressing these now should help the IETF LC and IESG evaluation go more smoothly. Please SHOUT loudly once you've had a chance to address these, and I'll start

[DNSOP] Approved: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting - "DNS Error Reporting"

Hi there Authors, IESG, Secretariat, and WG, draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting - "DNS Error Reporting" is now approved. I'd like to thank everyone, especially the authors, and Paul Wouters, for all of their hard work -

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] on private use TLDS: .interNAL -> .LAN

On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 6:07 AM, Toerless Eckert wrote: > Thanks, Paul > > My comment: > > https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/ > proposed-top-level-domain-string-for-private-use-24-01-2024/submissions/ > eckert-toerless-27-02-2024 Summary of Submission: > I would like to see a

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] AD Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8109bis

On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 8:57 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On Jan 31, 2024, at 17:39, Paul Wouters wrote: > > On Wed, 31 Jan 2024, Paul Hoffman wrote: > > On Jan 31, 2024, at 15:15, Paul Wouters wrote: > > Can they write a draft with why they are going against the RFC? > > Yes, that is possible.

[DNSOP] AD Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8109bis

Hi there, authors (and WG), Thank you for this document — I have some questions / comments before I can progress it. Firstly, the (presumably) easy one: The document says: "This document, when published, obsoletes RFC 8109." - can you add something along the lines of "Section 1.1 contains a list

Re: [DNSOP] Dealing with some open Errata:

Whoops, apologies, the previous reply was in my Drafts and I hit send on the wrong version. I will ask the IANA to update the reference to be RFC4340, and include a link to this thread. W On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 1:27 PM, Warren Kumari wrote: > On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 7:51 PM, John Lev

Re: [DNSOP] Dealing with some open Errata:

On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 7:51 PM, John Levine wrote: > It appears that Paul Wouters said: > > Section 4.1.2. says: > | URI| _dccp | [RFC7566] | > > I think this might have been part of a list used to "reserve" the names of > (transport) protocols, so that

Re: [DNSOP] Errata 7689 against RFC 8906, "A Common Operational Problem in DNS Servers: Failure to Communicate"

Thanks all, done! W On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 5:01 AM, Joe Abley wrote: > Hi Warren, > > On 15 Jan 2024, at 22:49, Warren Kumari wrote: > > Seeing as the document says you should "expect: flag: aa to be present", > it does seem like it would be better if it

[DNSOP] Errata 7689 against RFC 8906, "A Common Operational Problem in DNS Servers: Failure to Communicate"

Hi there all, As part of the Great Errata Cleanup of 2024, I'm going through reported Errata and trying to close them. I'm just dealing with the ones that I can do myself, but there are some which I need WG input on. I'd like to get feedback by Monday Jan 29th, otherwise I'll just go with my

[DNSOP] Dealing with some open Errata:

[ + Dave Crocker (author), Paul Wouters, Frederico Neves (registry experts)] Hi there all, As part of the Great Errata Cleanup of 2024, I'm going through reported Errata and trying to close them. I'm just dealing with the ones that I can do myself, but there are some which I need WG input on.

Re: [DNSOP] Notification Call for Adoption: draft-bash-rfc7958bis

I think that this is an important and useful document, and that it should be adopted…. W On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 12:15 AM, Geoff Huston wrote: > I am in support of adoption by the Working Group. The process of peer > review has proved to be highly valuable over the years and the result

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5933-bis-14.txt

Dear DNSOP, Just a quick note / reminder to the WG: This is the document which moved to the ISE and became draft-makarenko-gost2012-dnssec. It is still sitting in my queue, and has been for 400+ days. I'm planning on marking it DEAD once draft-makarenko-gost2012-dnssec progresses (which, we

Re: [DNSOP] Paul Wouters' Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting-07: (with DISCUSS)

On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 9:18 PM, Paul Wouters wrote: > Paul Wouters has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting-07: Discuss > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel

Re: [DNSOP] RFC7477 typo?

On Fri, Dec 01, 2023 at 4:03 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: > It’s stopping the serial changing too fast. > Well, yeah, obviously, but what is "too fast"? Why is 2^16 OK but 2^20 or 2^30 or 2^18.365 not? W > -- > Mark Andrews > > On 2 Dec 2023, at 06:43, Warren Kum

Re: [DNSOP] RFC7477 typo?

Dear DNSOP (and Wes), I was wading through my mailbox and realized that I hadn't seen any discussion of this. I'm quite sure that 2^16 is not a typo (there is quite a lot of text around this section), but I cannot really figure out / remember what exactly the threat model here is. Here are the

Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: Change the status of GOST Signature Algorithms in DNSSEC in the IETF stream to Historic

On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 6:08 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > [[Forwarding this to DNSOP because apparently the IESG forgot to...]] > Thank you. > The IESG has received a request from an individual participant to make the > following status changes: > > - RFC5933 from Proposed Standard to Historic

Re: [DNSOP] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8806 (7692)

Doh! That is correct… Thank you! W On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 8:59 AM, Joe Abley wrote: > Verified. > > On 31 Oct 2023, at 04:10, RFC Errata System > wrote: > > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8806, > "Running a Root Server Local to a Resolver". > >

[DNSOP] AD Review: draft-ietf-dnsop-zoneversion

Hi there, authors (and WG), I support what the document is trying to accomplish — I think that ZONEVERSIONs will be really useful once standardized and deployed. Unfortunately though, I believe that it needs revision and clarification before it is ready for last call. I started performing my AD

[DNSOP] Warren did a bad (was Re: Datatracker State Update Notice: )

l swapping it back in… On Thu, Dec 01, 2022 at 10:00 PM, Warren Kumari wrote: > Dear authors, and ISE (and Roman, PaulW, PaulH) > > Thank you for updating the document to address Paul Wouter's DISCUSS > position ( https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5933-bis/ >

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

I still don't understand why (other than marketing/advertising) this is needed — the EDE "4.18. Extended DNS Error Code 17 - Filtered" ("The server is unable to respond to the request because the domain is on a blocklist as requested by the client. Functionally, this amounts to "you requested that

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] AD Review of: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting

al an error to a > monitoring agent specified by the authoritative server. The error is > encoded in the QNAME, thus the very act of sending the query is to report > the error. > > Let me know if this works for you. > Perfectly, and thank you. W > Warmly, > > Roy > > On 13 Oct 2

[DNSOP] AD Review of: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting

Hi there, authors (and WG), Thank you for this document, I found it clear, useful, and an easy read. I did have one comment / clarification which I think would help the document. I don't think that it is especially clear to the first time reader that the query itself is the error report. Yes,

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

On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 4:05 AM, tirumal reddy wrote: > On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 at 21:37, Tommy Pauly org> wrote: > >> >> >> On Oct 11, 2023, at 3:17 PM, Warren Kumari wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 12:56 PM,

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

On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 12:56 PM, Vodafone Gianpaolo Angelo Scalone < Gianpaolo-Angelo.Scalone=40vodafone@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > I really love this draft and would like to see browser side implementation > for the benefit of customers user experience. Today several services are >

Re: [DNSOP] [Last-Call] [Ext] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis-09

On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 9:33 AM, Paul Wouters wrote: > On Sun, 17 Sep 2023, Salz, Rich wrote: > > [ speaking as individual only ] > > On the other hand, spending a week or two repeating a cycle to get an > important term in the current document seems like a better solution. > > If the WG agrees

Re: [DNSOP] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-dnsop-avoid-fragmentation-14

After discussions with the chairs, I'm (temporarily) returning this to the WG. W On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 12:14 PM, Petr Špaček wrote: > On 18. 08. 23 17:33, Peter van Dijk wrote: > > Hello Tim, > > On Wed, 2023-08-16 at 15:45 -0700, Tim Wicinski via Datatracker wrote: > > Tim Wicinski has

[DNSOP] AD Review of: draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis

1: Please add to the Abstract saying what this changes in RFC2308, and how it obsoletes RFC8499. E.g: "This document updates RFC 2308 by clarifying the definitions of Forwarder and QNAME, and obsoletes RFC 8499 by adding multiple terms and additional clarifications. A comprehensive list can be

Re: [DNSOP] IETF117 Chairs Actions

Heyya, Just confirming that I can start IESG Eval on draft-ietf-dnsop-caching-resolution-failures ? I'm assuming so, but… W On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 6:57 PM, Tim Wicinski wrote: > All, > > Thanks for another

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Re: rfc8499bis: lame

On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 1:14 PM, Edward Lewis wrote: > On 6/8/23, 11:23 PM, "DNSOP on behalf of Bob Bownes -Seiri" < > dnsop-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of bow...@seiri.com> wrote: > > I would posit that the potential to view the word as offensive has > increased as language usage has changed in

Re: [DNSOP] Delegation acceptance checks [was: Re: [Ext] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extension for lame delegation definition]

On Fri, May 05, 2023 at 4:39 AM, Peter Thomassen wrote: > On 5/4/23 20:07, Havard Eidnes wrote: > > As an example, it's quite common for people to register a domain and point > the DNS at some nameservers which they don't control, and have no > relationship with. > > If this is common, I'm

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extension for lame delegation definition

On Thu, May 04, 2023 at 5:07 AM, Mark Delany wrote: > On 03May23, Edward Lewis apparently wrote: > > Was any "lame" situation defined which wasn't the result of a bad > configuration? > > The difference between observing a symptom and diagnosing a cause is > great. I say this to caution against

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extension for lame delegation definition

On Tue, May 02, 2023 at 7:43 PM, Havard Eidnes wrote: > My parent says that the NS for exmple.com are ns1.example.com, ns2. > example.com , but I (example.com) say that my NS are ns1.example.com, ns2. > example.com *and* ns3.example.com. I don't (personally) think that this > is a lame

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extension for lame delegation definition

On Tue, May 02, 2023 at 12:14 PM, Peter Thomassen wrote: > On 5/2/23 17:52, Joe Abley wrote: > > On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 11:09, Peter Thomassen mailto:On > Tue, May 2, 2023 at 11:09, Peter Thomassen <> wrote: > > If one of the NS answers non-authoritatively, then it doesn't serve a > proper NS

Re: [DNSOP] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-23: (with COMMENT)

On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 5:18 PM, John Scudder wrote: > John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-23: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to

Re: [DNSOP] Dnsdir telechat review of draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-23

Just a quick more to say thank you for your review. Warren. On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 11:19 AM, Vladimír Čunát wrote: > Reviewer: Vladimír Čunát > Review result: Ready > > There've only been nits between -22 and -23; certainly no objections there > and thus nothing new for me to say. >

Re: [DNSOP] Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-23: (with COMMENT)

On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 10:11 AM, Lars Eggert wrote: > Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-23: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to

Re: [DNSOP] Paul Wouters' Yes on draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-23: (with COMMENT)

On Sun, Apr 23, 2023 at 4:16 PM, Paul Wouters wrote: > Paul Wouters has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-23: Yes > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this

Re: [DNSOP] Éric Vyncke's Yes on draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-23: (with COMMENT)

On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 4:04 AM, Éric Vyncke wrote: > Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-23: Yes > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this >

Re: [DNSOP] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-23: (with COMMENT)

On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 4:54 PM, Roman Danyliw wrote: > Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-23: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Meaning of lame delegation

On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 6:57 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On Apr 11, 2023, at 3:06 PM, Paul Wouters wrote: > > No one proposed to retire the term? > > Not yet, I believe. > > If unclear and additionally inappropriate from an inclusive language point > of view, why not document the term as is, with

Re: [DNSOP] Meaning of lame delegation

On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 5:13 PM, Mats Dufberg < mats.dufberg=40internetstiftelsen...@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > > > mats> For the *delegation* to be lame it is not enough for one name > mats> server to be ``broken''. The entire set must be such that the path > mats> to the child zone content is

[DNSOP] Warren Kumari's Yes on draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https-12: (with COMMENT)

Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https-12: Yes When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https

Re: [DNSOP] Additional Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-http

On Sun, Mar 19, 2023 at 5:23 AM, Tim Wicinski wrote: > All > > The 7 day followup WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https has finished up, > and I thank folks for their reviews of the changes. > I've added a comment to the shepherd write up about the reasoning behind > this and a link to Warren's

Re: [DNSOP] Breaking the logjam that is draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https

[ Top-post ] On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 12:39 PM, Warren Kumari wrote: > Hi there all, > > I was really hoping that it wouldn't come to this, but… > > > We approved draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https on 2022-05-22, and has been stuck > in MISREF state ever since[0], waiting on draft

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Implementor's status on draft-ietf-dnsop-avoid-fragmentation: BIND 9

rticularly major, so hopefully this can happen soon… W On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 11:26 AM, Warren Kumari wrote: > Hi all, > > Thank you to the authors, chairs and WG for wanting to make the document > as good as it can be, even if that does require some more work. > > The chairs

Re: [DNSOP] AD review of draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-21

On Fri, Mar 03, 2023 at 2:53 PM, Rob Wilton wrote: > Hi authors, WG, > > Here are my AD review comments on -21 of draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld. They > are all minor/nit comments, meaning that I'll leave it to the authors > discretion as to how they want to handle these comments. > > Minor level

[DNSOP] Breaking the logjam that is draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https

Hi there all, I was really hoping that it wouldn't come to this, but… We approved draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https on 2022-05-22, and has been stuck in MISREF state ever since[0], waiting on draft-ietf-tls-esni - "TLS Encrypted Client Hello" .

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Implementor's status on draft-ietf-dnsop-avoid-fragmentation: BIND 9

Hi all, Thank you to the authors, chairs and WG for wanting to make the document as good as it can be, even if that does require some more work. The chairs have requested that I return it to the WG to get an implementation section added, and so I'll do so[0]. Thanks again, W [0]: I'll keep the

[DNSOP] AD Review of: draft-ietf-dnsop-avoid-fragmentation

Hi there authors (and WG!), Thank you for this document, I found it clear, useful, and an easy read. I do have a few comments/nits to (hopefully!) further improve the document; addressing these now should help the IETF LC and IESG evaluation go more smoothly. Please SHOUT LOUDLY once you've had

[DNSOP] Warren Kumari's Yes on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-catalog-zones-08: (with COMMENT)

Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-catalog-zones-08: Yes When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer

[DNSOP] AD Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-catalog-zones

AD Review: Catalog Zones. Hi there, Thank you for all of the work you have put into this document; I think that catalog zones are a really useful feature, and should be documented. Before I can start IETF Last Call, however, there are some questions and issues that need to be addressed - the

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5933-bis-10

On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 2:54 PM, Warren Kumari wrote: > On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 12:41 PM, Warren Kumari wrote: > >> On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 7:22 AM, Paul Hoffman >> wrote: >> >>> On Oct 18, 2022, at 7:58 AM, Ron Even wrote: >>> >>> 1. whis is

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5933-bis-10

On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 12:41 PM, Warren Kumari wrote: > On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 7:22 AM, Paul Hoffman > wrote: > >> On Oct 18, 2022, at 7:58 AM, Ron Even wrote: >> >> 1. whis is this an informational RFC and not a standard track RFC. >> >> That's a r

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5933-bis-10

On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 7:22 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On Oct 18, 2022, at 7:58 AM, Ron Even wrote: > > 1. whis is this an informational RFC and not a standard track RFC. > > That's a reasonable question with a simple answer: because the WG changed > its mind on what the status of this protocol

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5933-bis-10

On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 7:22 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On Oct 18, 2022, at 7:58 AM, Ron Even wrote: > > 1. whis is this an informational RFC and not a standard track RFC. > > That's a reasonable question with a simple answer: because the WG changed > its mind on what the status of this protocol

Re: [DNSOP] Possible alt-tld last call?

On Sun, Oct 16, 2022 at 7:20 PM, Paul Wouters wrote: > On Sun, 16 Oct 2022, Suzanne Woolf wrote: > > 1. As far as I can tell, this draft does not comply with RFC 6761. This is > a problem for two reasons. > > One could advance the 6761bis proposal document first, which would remove > these

Re: [DNSOP] Possible alt-tld last call?

On Sun, Oct 16, 2022 at 11:44 PM, Eliot Lear wrote: > Hi Paul! > > Good conversation! I hope we can discuss some of this "in person" > (whatever that means these days) at IETF 115. > > On 17.10.22 04:20, Paul Wouters wrote: > > On Sun, 16 Oct 2022, Suzanne Woolf wrote: > > 1. As far as I can

Re: [DNSOP] Possible alt-tld last call?

On Sun, Oct 16, 2022 at 11:03 AM, Suzanne Woolf wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > > The chairs have gotten a couple of requests, off-list and on, for a WGLC > on draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld. > > We’ve reviewed the current draft closely and have some concerns that we > feel need to be resolved before

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

On Wed, Oct 05, 2022 at 3:59 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On Oct 5, 2022, at 11:36 AM, Peter Thomassen wrote: > > On 10/5/22 20:25, Paul Hoffman wrote: > > On 10/5/22 19:56, Paul Hoffman wrote: > > > I propose to replace that paragraph with: > What we today call "DNSSEC" is the DNSSEC

[DNSOP] An update on the DNS Directorate.

Apologies again for the delay - Eric Vynke and I have been traveling and kept missing each other, but have finally gotten a chance to sync up on the DNS Directorate. We have received more than 50 volunteers for the directorate, and are extremely grateful to everyone who volunteered. The

Re: [DNSOP] An Orderly Way Forward on Special Use Names (Yes, again)

On Sun, Oct 02, 2022 at 10:32 PM, Paul Wouters wrote: > Speaking as AD, > > This topic came up at the last IESG telechat, partially in response to > Paul Hoffman’s https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hoffman-rfc6761bis/ and > my concerns about the infinite amount of time this issue has cost

Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-17

On Mon, Oct 03, 2022 at 8:07 AM, Martin Schanzenbach < mschanzenb...@posteo.de> wrote: > Hi, > > FWIW: Triggered by the ADs mail on this ML and after re-reading -17 I > would like to make clear that the current draft looks pretty good to me > with minor nits as mentioned in this thread. >

Re: [DNSOP] DNS Directorate...

ing to find some time to chat and figure out how to narrow down the slate some (this has been made slower by travels and such). Didn't want to leave y'all hanging, and we hope to have this wrapped up soon. Thank you again, W On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 3:18 AM, Warren Kumari wrote: > Hi the

Re: [DNSOP] [Last-Call] [Ext] Last Call: (DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC)) to Best Current Practice

On Sat, Sep 24, 2022 at 12:44 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On Sep 23, 2022, at 9:34 AM, tom petch wrote: > > Going into the IANA registry by name, as I usually do, I think that from > Section 6 DNSSEC Algorithm numbers > DNSSEC NSEC3 parameters > are groups and not registries whereas > DNSSEC DS

[DNSOP] DNS Directorate...

Hi there all, At IETF 114 I mentioned that Eric Vynke and I were planning on creating a DNS Directorate. Unfortunately we got a little busy, and so it took a bit longer than expected, but we've finally had a chance to write up a "charter" (below). A number of people have already kindly offered

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Questions / concerns with draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https (in RFC Editor queue)

Hi all, Firstly, and most importantly, thank y'all for keeping this civil, friendly and productive; I really appreciate it. I've (informally) checked with the IESG on the proposed change in the PR and also including Erik's proposed operational note ("Some implementations may not allow A or

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Questions / concerns with draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https (in RFC Editor queue)

use RFC 2119 language, but the list of failure modes > in 3.1 leads to "MAY" being the most appropriate choice.) > > Let me know if that is good enough. > (The rest can go into a -bis... how soon are we allowed to start a -bis > document? The day of RFC publication? I'd like to st

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Questions / concerns with draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https (in RFC Editor queue)

On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 4:39 AM, Brian Dickson < brian.peter.dick...@gmail.com> wrote: > Here are some proposed text changes, per Warren's invitation to send text: > Um, no. Warren said: "can we craft a sentence (or possibly two) which only clarify what is already written?". This is a

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Questions / concerns with draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https (in RFC Editor queue)

On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 12:33 PM, Erik Nygren wrote: > Catching up on this thread, I agree with Ben Schwartz, Tommy Pauly, and > Eric Orth > that the current behavior makes sense and that no fundamental technical > change is needed. > I've been watching this thread and following along - it has

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-16: please review

On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 12:09 PM, Martin Schanzenbach < mschanzenb...@posteo.de> wrote: > On 23. Aug 2022, at 16:47, Warren Kumari wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 10:29 AM, Peter Thomassen wrote: > On 8/23/22 07:02, Ray Bellis wrote: > > There will be a very

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-16: please review

On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 11:45 AM, Peter Thomassen wrote: > On 8/23/22 11:38, Paul Hoffman wrote: > > On Aug 23, 2022, at 7:47 AM, Warren Kumari wrote: > > So, I'd think something like: "For compatibility with existing > applications and to maximize interoperability, it is

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-16: please review

On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 10:29 AM, Peter Thomassen wrote: > On 8/23/22 07:02, Ray Bellis wrote: > > There will be a very long tail of systems out there that do not know about > ".alt". > > How would those systems respond when passed a domain-style name that does > not meet domain-style syntax

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Questions / concerns with draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https (in RFC Editor queue)

On Sat, Aug 20, 2022 at 1:29 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On Aug 20, 2022, at 10:07 AM, Warren Kumari wrote: > > Pausing publication is an unusual, but definitely not unprecedented, step. > Although we are able to make changes until a document is published as an > RFC, once it is ap

[DNSOP] Questions / concerns with draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https (in RFC Editor queue)

Brian Dickson recently reached out to one of the DNSOP chairs to raise some technical concerns related to the AliasMode functionality in draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https. Although this document has already passed WGLC, IETF LC, IESG Eval, and was approved and sent to the RFC Editor, I want to make

Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-16: please review

On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 5:46 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote: > Hiya, > > On 19/08/2022 20:43, Warren Kumari wrote: > > So, it is perfectly acceptable (in my view) for it to have: > > Reference Name > - > a-cool-document foo.alt > another-

Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-16: please review

On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 2:06 PM, Paul Wouters wrote: > On Fri, 19 Aug 2022, Paul Hoffman wrote: > > Support and opposition are welcome, but suggested text changes are even > more welcome. Once we get this right, Warren and I will ask for another WG > Last Call so that it can move on. > > NIT: I

[DNSOP] On ALT-TLD, GNS, and namespaces...

Warren’s meta-comment -[ Please read this ]- - I believe that there is still an open-mineshaft problem around Internet domain namespaces - what exactly they are, what is the DNS namespace, how one determines the boundaries of

Re: [DNSOP] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8552 (7064)

So, just to be clear, I'm approving all of these errata, yes? W On Wed, Aug 03, 2022 at 6:38 PM, John R. Levine wrote: > On Wed, 3 Aug 2022, Dave Crocker wrote: > > Original Text > - > | URI | _acct | [RFC6118] | > > Corrected Text > -- > | URI | _acct | [RFC7566] | >

Re: [DNSOP] The DO bit - was Re: [Ext] Re: signing parent-side NS (was: Re: Updating RFC 7344 for cross-NS consistency)

On Sat, Jul 30, 2022 at 1:24 PM, Edward Lewis wrote: > On 7/29/22, 10:49 AM, "DNSOP on behalf of Paul Wouters" ietf.org on behalf of p...@nohats.ca> wrote: > > I would have expected (and have taught) that this was by design to not > disrupt systems with new data unless we knew they were ready

Re: [DNSOP] post-dispatch dispatching a draft...

On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 11:39 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote: > Hi all, > > At IETF 113 a draft of mine [1] was presented (slides [2]) at the dispatch > session. Part of the upshot there was to check with dnsop if people felt > asking for adoption here would be the right plan for this draft. > > The

Re: [DNSOP] List conduct (was: Re: DNSSEC as a Best Current Practice)

On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 8:59 AM, Masataka Ohta < mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote: > Suzanne Woolf wrote: > > As some of you have noted, the thread under the subject "DNSSEC as a Best > Current Practice" has included some inappropriate posts, not consistent > with the IETF Code of Conduct

[DNSOP] AD Review of: draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec3-guidance

Hi there, authors (and WG), Thank you for this document, I found it clear, useful, and an easy read. I do have a few comments/nits; addressing these now should help the IETF LC and IESG evaluation go more smoothly. Please SHOUT loudly once you've had a chance to address these, and I'll start

[DNSOP] IETF "leadership pipeline"

Hi there all, An ongoing topic in the IETF & IESG is how to grow the IETF "leadership pipeline", so that when we need new AD and / or chairs, we have good candidates. Currently when a new chair needs to be appointed the process goes something like this (with some added hyperbole): The AD(s)

Re: [DNSOP] [EXT] Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7686 (6761)

draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 8:40 PM Mark Andrews wrote: > Authoritative servers should take NO SPECIAL BEHAVIOUR for .onion. > > The default behaviour of an authoritative server is fine be it REFUSED,

[DNSOP] Fwd: NomCom 2021-2022 Call for Community Feedback

Please provide feedback to the NomCom -- the IESG you get is the one that *you* help select. Even a few sentences help... W -- Forwarded message - From: NomCom Chair 2021 Date: Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 10:28 AM Subject: NomCom 2021-2022 Call for Community Feedback To: IETF

[DNSOP] Fwd: NomCom 2021-2022 Call for Community Feedback

Please provide feedback to the NomCom -- the IESG you get is the one that *you* help select. Even a few sentences help... W -- Forwarded message - From: NomCom Chair 2021 Date: Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 10:28 AM Subject: NomCom 2021-2022 Call for Community Feedback To: IETF

Re: [DNSOP] [art] [Last-Call] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-tcp-requirements-12

On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 3:47 PM John Kristoff wrote: > On Mon, 13 Sep 2021 21:24:37 -0400 > Warren Kumari wrote: > > > As Robert Sparks helpfully pointed out on last-call list, I was only > > talking about this "particular potential BCP updating a particular

Re: [DNSOP] [art] [Last-Call] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-tcp-requirements-12

On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 5:23 AM tom petch wrote: > From: art on behalf of Bob Hinden < > bob.hin...@gmail.com> > Sent: 11 September 2021 17:03 > > Hi Warren, > > > On Sep 10, 2021, at 4:19 PM, Warren Kumari wrote: > > > > > Seems reas

Re: [DNSOP] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-tcp-requirements-12

On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 6:22 PM A. Jean Mahoney wrote: > Hi Duane, > > On 9/7/21 12:48 PM, Wessels, Duane wrote: > > > > > >> On Sep 3, 2021, at 5:29 PM, Jean Mahoney via Datatracker < > nore...@ietf.org> wrote: > >> > >> Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not >

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] SHA-1 DS algo in arpa. :)

On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 1:39 PM Warren Kumari wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 12:13 PM Joe Abley wrote: > >> Hi Paul (W), >> >> On Sep 9, 2021, at 12:05, Paul Wouters wrote: >> >> > On Thu, 9 Sep 2021, Paul Hoffman wrote: >> >&g

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] SHA-1 DS algo in arpa. :)

On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 12:13 PM Joe Abley wrote: > Hi Paul (W), > > On Sep 9, 2021, at 12:05, Paul Wouters wrote: > > > On Thu, 9 Sep 2021, Paul Hoffman wrote: > >> > >> Did you first ask the administrators of the zone in question before > sending this message to a grooup that has no

[DNSOP] Fwd: NomCom 2021-2022 Call for Nominations

Dear all, You've probably already seen this multiple times by now, but it's sufficiently important that I figured I'd send it again. There are many open positions that the NomCom needs to fill: ART AD: 1 position INT AD: 1 position OPS AD: 1 position RTG AD: 1

Re: [DNSOP] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc7816bis-10: (with DISCUSS)

On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 1:24 AM Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 05:23:31AM -0700, Éric Vyncke via Datatracker > wrote: > > > -- Section 2.1 -- > > I support Erik Kline's COMMENT on this and am raising it to a blocking > DISCUSS. > > > > A/ in all the discussion in the last §, a

Re: [DNSOP] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc7816bis-10: (with DISCUSS)

I with all DISCUSS positions were this easy :-) Thanks! W On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 6:09 PM Alvaro Retana wrote: > Thanks Warren! > > I cleared. > > Alvaro. > > On August 23, 2021 at 6:02:16 PM, Warren Kumari (war...@kumari.net) wrote: > > > > On Mon, Aug 23,

Re: [DNSOP] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc7816bis-10: (with DISCUSS)

On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 5:41 PM Alvaro Retana via Datatracker < nore...@ietf.org> wrote: > Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc7816bis-10: Discuss > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in

Re: [DNSOP] AD review: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-tcp-requirements

On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 7:50 PM Warren Kumari wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 6:37 PM Wessels, Duane > wrote: > >> Thanks Warren, I made all of your proposed changes. > > > Gadzooks that was fast! > > > Here's a rewrite of the DNS wedgie paragrap

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >