Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call

2016-10-14 Thread Matthijs Mekking
Hi Warren, On 08-10-16 00:57, Warren Kumari wrote: > On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 8:06 AM, Matthijs Mekking > wrote: >> All, >> >> I reviewed this draft and while it is shaping up nicely, I don't think it is >> quite ready for publication: >> >> 1. As John pointed out earlier, the document makes an in

[DNSOP] Future of "Using DNAME in the DNS root zone for sinking of special-use TLDs" ?

2016-10-14 Thread Stephane Bortzmeyer
draft-bortzmeyer-dname-root , which proposes to "sink" special-use TLD (may be you've heard of RFC 6761 "special use domain names"?) using AS 112, will expire soon. From the discussions, the two biggest issues were the "g

Re: [DNSOP] Future of "Using DNAME in the DNS root zone for sinking of special-use TLDs" ?

2016-10-14 Thread Paul Wouters
On Fri, 14 Oct 2016, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: draft-bortzmeyer-dname-root , which proposes to "sink" special-use TLD (may be you've heard of RFC 6761 "special use domain names"?) using AS 112, will expire soon. From

Re: [DNSOP] Future of "Using DNAME in the DNS root zone for sinking of special-use TLDs" ?

2016-10-14 Thread Stephane Bortzmeyer
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 10:04:21AM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote a message of 19 lines which said: > But by adding delegations in the root to AS112, aren't we making it > more likely that the queries leak further onto the net? That's precisely the point described in section 6, second paragraph.

Re: [DNSOP] Future of "Using DNAME in the DNS root zone for sinking of special-use TLDs" ?

2016-10-14 Thread John Levine
I would rather we abandon this draft. I don't think the benefit is worth the cost. It is not my impression that the load on the roots from special-use leakage is a significant fraction of the overall flood of garbage they get. Whether or not it is, we have at least three things going on that wou

Re: [DNSOP] Future of "Using DNAME in the DNS root zone for sinking of special-use TLDs" ?

2016-10-14 Thread Paul Wouters
On Fri, 14 Oct 2016, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: "Using DNAME in the DNS root zone for sinking of special-use TLDs" ? On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 10:04:21AM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote a message of 19 lines which said: But by adding delegations in the root to AS112, aren't we making it more li

Re: [DNSOP] Future of "Using DNAME in the DNS root zone for sinking of special-use TLDs" ?

2016-10-14 Thread Mark Andrews
In message , Paul Wouters w rites: > On Fri, 14 Oct 2016, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > > > "Using DNAME in the DNS root zone for sinking of special-use TLDs" ? > > > > On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 10:04:21AM -0400, > > Paul Wouters wrote > > a message of 19 lines which said: > > > >> But by add

Re: [DNSOP] Future of "Using DNAME in the DNS root zone for sinking of special-use TLDs" ?

2016-10-14 Thread Brian Dickson
On Fri, 14 Oct 2016, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: "Using DNAME in the DNS root zone for sinking of special-use TLDs" ? On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 10:04:21AM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote a message of 19 lines which said: But by adding delegations in the root to AS112, aren't we making it more li

[DNSOP] ECDSA woes

2016-10-14 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson
Hi, we have a deployment of home gateways, based on OpenWrt BB that uses dnsmasq v2.71 as resolver, with DNSSEC validation turned on. It seems some Dnsmasq v2.71 does not support ECDSA. A rather large CDN uses ECDSA only. I also found bug reports for Debian with same problem, because they al