Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-05.txt

> On 29 Sep 2016, at 13:24, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > >> >> Where’s the demand from experimenters > > The demand? You see it in the use of non-ICANN TLDs like .onion or > .bit. > >> and why do they need a dedicated TLD for their alterate resolution >> systems? > > You

Re: [DNSOP] Mandated order of CNAME records in a CNAME chain?

Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 08:17:28AM +, > Viktor Dukhovni wrote > a message of 57 lines which said: > > > By the way, is it the case that CNAMEs in the answer section MUST > > appear in their natural chaining order: > > Very good

Re: [DNSOP] On the call for adoption on Special Use Names (Please! Pretty please, with a cherry on top?!)

On Sep 29, 2016, at 10:21, Ted Lemon wrote: > > To be clear, while the IESG may have said something about their > willingness to entertain further uses of the 6761 process, the 6761 > process represents current IETF consensus. If we don't update it, it > stands. That does

Re: [DNSOP] Where in a CNAME chain is the QNAME?

On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On 28 Sep 2016, at 22:50, Robert Edmonds wrote: > > Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 09:04:54AM -0400, >>> Matt Larson wrote >>> a message of 41 lines which said: >>>

Re: [DNSOP] On the call for adoption on Special Use Names (Please! Pretty please, with a cherry on top?!)

> On Sep 28, 2016, at 17:24, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 12:35:00PM -0400, > Paul Wouters wrote > a message of 16 lines which said: > >>> it works (two TLD were registered through it). >> >> Are you referring to the two

Re: [DNSOP] Where in a CNAME chain is the QNAME?

Paul Hoffman wrote: > Oddly, "owner name" is correct here. From RFC 1035, Section 3.2.1 which > describes the format of resource records: Compare that section to the nearly identical §4.1.3, which replaces this sentence: All RRs have the same top level format shown below: with: The

Re: [DNSOP] On the call for adoption on Special Use Names (Please! Pretty please, with a cherry on top?!)

Carrot and stick. The current IESG can certainly abstain new proposals to death, and individual ADs can refuse to publish. But in doing so they are trying to lead the consensus on a new direction. They cannot unilaterally change it. On Sep 29, 2016 10:27, "Paul Wouters" wrote: >

Re: [DNSOP] register and unregister, was Tell me about the ISO 3166 user assigned two-letter codes and TLDs

>> prompts another question: if a name enters the Special-Use Name >> Registry, is it parked (for an indefinite amount of time), or is it >> engraved in stone (and won't move from that registry again)? And can >> the SUNR hold both types of names (parked and final)? > >Good question, not (as far

Re: [DNSOP] Tell me about the ISO 3166 user assigned two-letter codes and TLDs

Mark, On September 28, 2016 at 5:08:05 PM, Mark Andrews (ma...@isc.org) wrote: > I've been telling people that if they need a fake private TLD for their local  > network they should use one of those since it is exceedingly unlikely  > ever to collide with a real DNS name. Am I right?  No. Just

Re: [DNSOP] Where in a CNAME chain is the QNAME?

On 29 Sep 2016, at 8:01, Robert Edmonds wrote: > Paul Hoffman wrote: >> Oddly, "owner name" is correct here. From RFC 1035, Section 3.2.1 which >> describes the format of resource records: > > Compare that section to the nearly identical §4.1.3, which replaces this > sentence: > > All RRs

Re: [DNSOP] Tell me about the ISO 3166 user assigned two-letter codes and TLDs

Hi - A couple of items of history. Back about 1987, Jon Postel and I talked about the original registration of .INT - he was the IANA, I was managing the NIC contract which would be responsible for dealing with registrations under .INT. ( .INT ended up being managed by ISI under an DARPA

Re: [DNSOP] On the call for adoption on Special Use Names (Please! Pretty please, with a cherry on top?!)

Okay, John, if you can state the problem in one sentence and not have it just be your particular view of the problem, let's hear that sentence. Otherwise, can you stop with the hyperbole? I did, back on Sept 18th. Here it is again, slightly tweaked. I realize that you don't like either of

Re: [DNSOP] On the call for adoption on Special Use Names (Please! Pretty please, with a cherry on top?!)

So, if anyone is still wondering why we need a /good/ problem statement, this discussion is why. You are both taking past reach other because you are looking at only the part of the problem you care about. Agreed. It's also why the problem statement has to be as short as possible, like one

Re: [DNSOP] On the call for adoption on Special Use Names (Please! Pretty please, with a cherry on top?!)

On Thu, 29 Sep 2016, Warren Kumari wrote: On Thursday, September 29, 2016, Ted Lemon wrote: So, if anyone is still wondering why we need a /good/ problem statement, this discussion is why.  You are both taking past reach other because you are looking at only the

Re: [DNSOP] On the call for adoption on Special Use Names (Please! Pretty please, with a cherry on top?!)

On Sep 29, 2016, at 8:37 PM, Warren Kumari > wrote: On Thursday, September 29, 2016, Ted Lemon > wrote: So, if anyone is still wondering why we need a /good/ problem statement, this discussion is why. You

Re: [DNSOP] Mandated order of CNAME records in a CNAME chain?

On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 09:03:33AM -0400, Robert Edmonds wrote: > > Very good question but, IMHO, it is thread-stealing (hence changing > > the subject, and removing thread headers). > > I think there was already a thread on this topic recently on this list > ("Order of CNAME and A in

Re: [DNSOP] On the call for adoption on Special Use Names (Please! Pretty please, with a cherry on top?!)

On Thursday, September 29, 2016, Ted Lemon wrote: > So, if anyone is still wondering why we need a /good/ problem statement, > this discussion is why. You are both taking past reach other because you > are looking at only the part of the problem you care about. > ... and why

Re: [DNSOP] Tell me about the ISO 3166 user assigned two-letter codes and TLDs

I've been telling people that if they need a fake private TLD for their local network they should use one of those since it is exceedingly unlikely ever to collide with a real DNS name. Am I right? C: why not just use .alt for this? It is clear that these should not hit the global DNS, and

Re: [DNSOP] Tell me about the ISO 3166 user assigned two-letter codes and TLDs

On Thursday, 29 September 2016, John R Levine wrote: > I've been telling people that if they need a fake private TLD for their local network they should use one of those since it is exceedingly unlikely ever to collide with a real DNS name. Am I right? >>> > C:

Re: [DNSOP] Tell me about the ISO 3166 user assigned two-letter codes and TLDs

On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 11:27:20PM -, John Levine wrote: > The codes AA, QM-QZ, XA-XZ, and ZZ are "user assigned" and will never > be used for countries. Last year Ed Lewis wrote an I-D proposing that > XA-XZ be made private use and the rest future use, but as far as I can > tell it never

Re: [DNSOP] Tell me about the ISO 3166 user assigned two-letter codes and TLDs

David Conrad writes: > > I'd really like to say yes, but ISO-3166/MA appears to have removed > references > to "User Assigned" in their official ISO-3166 two letter code w= > webpage. Only the the standard is normative. > I'm trying to understand if they've changed their mind, but no

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-05.txt

Stephane Bortzmeyer writes: > > As you can imagine, I disagree. > > > Domain names are written left to right. > > In english, yes, not in general. They are always written from the > beginning to the end (obviously) and the final label can be at the > left in a RTL script. There is no

Re: [DNSOP] Where in a CNAME chain is the QNAME?

On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 09:26:38PM +, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 12:33:39PM +0100, > Ólafur Guðmundsson wrote > a message of 148 lines which said: > > > The RCODE applies to the RRSET pointed to by the last CNAME in answer > > section (or

Re: [DNSOP] Tell me about the ISO 3166 user assigned two-letter codes and TLDs

> On Sep 29, 2016, at 2:56 AM, hellekin wrote: > >> On 09/29/2016 05:42 AM, Edward Lewis wrote: >> >> The one option you have is ".example", unfortunately (and in sympathy) >> I don't have a better suggestion. >> > > .example is for documentation. You can use .invalid for

Re: [DNSOP] On the call for adoption on Special Use Names (Please! Pretty please, with a cherry on top?!)

The initiation problem is the belief IETF needs a mechanism to identify non-use of the DNS or special use of the DNS demanding a break-out from normal gethostbyname() and related processing. The second order problem is that people come to the table with proscriptive ideas about the specific

Re: [DNSOP] Tell me about the ISO 3166 user assigned two-letter codes and TLDs

On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 3:28 PM, John R Levine wrote: > I suppose I could use jrl.alt, but I wouldn't want to use plain .alt for >>> fear of, if you'll pardon the phrase, name collisions. >>> >> > Name collisions may occur at any delegation point - why do you think the >> root

Re: [DNSOP] Tell me about the ISO 3166 user assigned two-letter codes and TLDs

I suppose I could use jrl.alt, but I wouldn't want to use plain .alt for fear of, if you'll pardon the phrase, name collisions. Name collisions may occur at any delegation point - why do you think the root zone is special in this regard? The point of .alt as I understand it is to provide a

Re: [DNSOP] On the call for adoption on Special Use Names (Please! Pretty please, with a cherry on top?!)

The latter, is the decision-role of ICANN. Under advisement, yes. respecting IETF process yes. But the mechanism as written in 6761 vests IETF with a process outcome which specifies where the label is, and what value. Thats just wrong. For some version of wrong, I suppose, but it seems a false

Re: [DNSOP] On the call for adoption on Special Use Names (Please! Pretty please, with a cherry on top?!)

Thats precisely why its NOT a false analogy: the design model in the IETF is that the value doesn't matter, but in the DNS, the design model is "follow the money" and 6761 crosses the bars: it enables people in tech-space, to reserve labels in meat-space. We got it wrong. We should have

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-05.txt

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 07:38:52PM +0100, Jim Reid wrote a message of 35 lines which said: > Where’s the demand from experimenters The demand? You see it in the use of non-ICANN TLDs like .onion or .bit. > and why do they need a dedicated TLD for their alterate resolution

[DNSOP] Mandated order of CNAME records in a CNAME chain?

On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 08:17:28AM +, Viktor Dukhovni wrote a message of 57 lines which said: > By the way, is it the case that CNAMEs in the answer section MUST > appear in their natural chaining order: Very good question but, IMHO, it is thread-stealing (hence

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-05.txt

On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 09:50:13AM +0200, Jaap Akkerhuis wrote a message of 15 lines which said: > There is no such thing as a language attribute to doamain names. Tell that to ICANN, which continues to use "languages" when they mean "scripts" :-( But if you want

Re: [DNSOP] Where in a CNAME chain is the QNAME?

On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 01:50:05AM -0400, Robert Edmonds wrote a message of 28 lines which said: > The QNAME is a domain name, but is it an owner name? There is no owned > record data in the question section (and the entries in the question > section are not RRs). You're

Re: [DNSOP] Comment on section 2 of draft-ietf-dnsop-nxdomain-cut-05.txt

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 03:46:16PM -0700, Matthew Pounsett wrote a message of 137 lines which said: > My rationale is that if foo.bar.example.org were still a valid name By "valid name", do you mean "something which existed less than $TTL seconds ago"? > at the time that

Re: [DNSOP] Comment on section 2 of draft-ietf-dnsop-nxdomain-cut-05.txt

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 07:28:57PM +, White, Andrew wrote a message of 284 lines which said: > True. When a resolver gets an NXDOMAIN for, say x.example.com, would > it better to say the resolver SHOULD drop from cache all descendents > of x.example.com, or MAY?

Re: [DNSOP] Comment on section 2 of draft-ietf-dnsop-nxdomain-cut-05.txt

On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 01:42:19PM +, Edward Lewis wrote a message of 84 lines which said: > As far as DNSSEC, this only works with DNSSEC in place, right? You > need the missing span proofs or you are NXDOMAIN'ing entire zones, > not just entire domains (within a

Re: [DNSOP] Where in a CNAME chain is the QNAME?

On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 1:50 AM, Robert Edmonds wrote: > Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 09:04:54AM -0400, > > Matt Larson wrote > > a message of 41 lines which said: > > > > > I'd venture that more people familiar with the

Re: [DNSOP] ENT and NXDOMAIN: the case of RFC 4035

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 09:31:32AM +0100, Ray Bellis wrote a message of 29 lines which said: > Roy Arend's response was that the intent was that an ENT response > requires the same NSEC records as an NXDOMAIN response, but not the same > RCODE. Sure, but the title of the

Re: [DNSOP] Comment on section 2 of draft-ietf-dnsop-nxdomain-cut-05.txt

On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Matthew Pounsett wrote: > > > On 28 September 2016 at 10:29, Shumon Huque wrote: > >> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Matthew Pounsett >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 28 September 2016 at 06:42, Edward

Re: [DNSOP] Comment on section 2 of draft-ietf-dnsop-nxdomain-cut-05.txt

On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 06:44:27PM +0200, Ralf Weber wrote a message of 26 lines which said: > I consider anything in the cache where the TTL is still valid to be > valid data that can be send to clients even if below the nxdomain > cut. My understanding is that this is how

Re: [DNSOP] On the call for adoption on Special Use Names (Please! Pretty please, with a cherry on top?!)

So, if anyone is still wondering why we need a /good/ problem statement, this discussion is why. You are both taking past reach other because you are looking at only the part of the problem you care about. On Sep 29, 2016 6:03 PM, "George Michaelson" wrote: Thats precisely