Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-capture-format

On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 08:32:42PM -0400, Tim Wicinski wrote a message of 22 lines which said: > This starts a Working Group Last Call for > draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-capture-format At IETF 99 in Prague, I implemented the version of this time . Some

Re: [DNSOP] 4 DNS presentations on MAPRG (Thu 9:30 @Place du Canada)

I will say that maprg has become my favorite "value added" event of IETF week - terrific opportunity to learn about how the Internet really works in ways a bit beyond (but relevant to) our usual focuses. (whatever those focuses might be). Highly recommend. On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 2:21 PM, Tim

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-huque-dnsop-multi-provider-dnssec

I support this draft to be WG I-D. -- Yoshiro YONEYA On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 20:26:59 -0400 Tim Wicinski wrote: > We've had some interest in moving this document forward, and the chairs > wanted to kick off this Call for Adoption before Montreal so if there > are concerns there will be some

[DNSOP] Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf

I've reviewed this document and I think it's in pretty good shape, and is just about ready to be sent up for publication. I have some editorial comments that are mostly minor in nature, as follows: Section 1.1: OLD: The scoping feature is particularly useful when generalized resource

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-huque-dnsop-multi-provider-dnssec

tjw> This starts a Call for Adoption for: tjw> draft-huque-dnsop-multi-provider-dnssec I support adoption of this document. ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

[DNSOP] Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-fix

I've reviewed this document and it also looks like it's pretty much ready. My suggestions here are also pretty minor: As the other document, this one uses MUST without the RFC2119 boilerplate. Section 3.2 replaces text in Section 4.1 of something, but I don't know what; the prior paragraph

Re: [DNSOP] QNAME minimisation on the standards track?

> On Jul 18, 2018, at 9:46 AM, Sara Dickinson wrote: > >> On 17 Jul 2018, at 17:35, Paul Wouters wrote: >> >> On Tue, 17 Jul 2018, tjw ietf wrote: >> >>> Subject: Re: [DNSOP] QNAME minimisation on the standards track? >>> I’d like to see a more fleshed out operational considerations section.

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-huque-dnsop-multi-provider-dnssec

On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 08:26:59PM -0400, Tim Wicinski wrote: > We've had some interest in moving this document forward, and the chairs > wanted to kick off this Call for Adoption before Montreal so if there > are concerns there will be some meeting time to address. > > This document is label as:

[DNSOP] 4 DNS presentations on MAPRG (Thu 9:30 @Place du Canada)

Hello Folks, So in the end of today's session, I briefly mention that there will be 4 presentations on MAPRG tomorrow about DNS. After that, some people told me they'd would have liked to know a bit more these presentations and the group itself, since many people on DNSOP may not be aware of

Re: [DNSOP] 4 DNS presentations on MAPRG (Thu 9:30 @Place du Canada)

Thanks Giovane. I am hoping some DNSOP folks will show up. It does conflict with DNS-SD, but those look like interesting talks. I've included the links for the click-adverse:

Re: [DNSOP] Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-fix

On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 12:33 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: > On 7/18/2018 8:37 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > >> Section 3.2 replaces text in Section 4.1 of something, but I don't know >> what; the prior paragraph refers to multiple other documents. I suggest: >> (a) clarify which document's 4.1

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-huque-dnsop-multi-provider-dnssec

Ólafur Guðmundsson wrote: > Support adoption +1 Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finchhttp://dotat.at/ Forties, Cromarty, Forth, Tyne, Dogger, Southwest Fisher: Variable 3 or less, increasing 4 at times. Smooth or slight. Fair. Good.___ DNSOP mailing list

Re: [DNSOP] Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-fix

On 7/18/2018 8:37 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: Section 3.2 replaces text in Section 4.1 of something, but I don't know what; the prior paragraph refers to multiple other documents.  I suggest:  (a) clarify which document's 4.1 is being replaced, and (b) don't bother including the original

Re: [DNSOP] Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf

On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 12:50 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: > > >> I imagine myself as a SECDIR reviewer, and believe this would be the >> first section I would read for any document to which I'm assigned. >> Discovering there a sentence that basically says "None" would get my back >> up ("We'll see

Re: [DNSOP] QNAME minimisation on the standards track?

On 18.7.2018 16:04, Dan York wrote: > >> On Jul 18, 2018, at 9:46 AM, Sara Dickinson > > wrote: >> >>> On 17 Jul 2018, at 17:35, Paul Wouters >> > wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, 17 Jul 2018, tjw ietf wrote: >>> Subject: Re: [DNSOP] QNAME minimisation

Re: [DNSOP] Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf

Folks, I'm responding to Murray's impressive proofreading details offlist, but there are some points he raises that might need wg discussion: On 7/18/2018 8:17 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: COMMENT: The DNS is case-insensitive so this is a minor point, but would there be any benefit to

[DNSOP] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-dnsop-isp-ip6rdns-05

Tim Wicinski has requested publication of draft-ietf-dnsop-isp-ip6rdns-05 as Informational on behalf of the DNSOP working group. Please verify the document's state at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-isp-ip6rdns/ ___ DNSOP mailing

Re: [DNSOP] Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf

On 7/18/2018 9:28 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 12:21 PM, Dave Crocker > wrote: Folks, I'm responding to Murray's impressive proofreading details offlist, but there are some points he raises that might need wg discussion: Aw

[DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-no-response-issue-09.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations WG of the IETF. Title : A Common Operational Problem in DNS Servers - Failure To Respond. Author : M. Andrews

Re: [DNSOP] [Doh] SRV and HTTP - 18:30 Tuesday (room change)

On 17/07/2018 19:43, Shane Kerr wrote: > Ray Bellis: ANAME shifts work to resolvers; a really bad idea. correction here - what I actually said was that in the transitional phase ANAME shifts work to * authoritatives *. Ray ___ DNSOP mailing list

Re: [DNSOP] QNAME minimisation on the standards track?

On 18 Jul 2018, at 1:33, manu tman wrote: I'd like to see this standardized too. Side note: I would also be interested to get a return of experience from people operating qname minimization at scale, the type of issues encountered, what are the ratios of such errors hint @marek :) Just

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5011-security-considerations-13.txt

Hi i read this document over with fresh eyes and tried to ignore any history. Summary: Publication considered harmful Reasons: This document calls itself "Security Considerations" but in reality all it is covering is "Publication considerations by Authority" the document does not cover at all

Re: [DNSOP] [Driu] [Doh] SRV and HTTP - 18:30 Tuesday (room change)

[ pruned CC list ] Ray Bellis wrote: > On 17/07/2018 19:43, Shane Kerr wrote: > > > Ray Bellis: ANAME shifts work to resolvers; a really bad idea. > > correction here - what I actually said was that in the transitional > phase ANAME shifts work to * authoritatives *. >From my perspective, it

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5011-security-considerations-13.txt

The authors are more than happy to change the name to that... W On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 9:13 AM Ólafur Guðmundsson wrote: > > > Hi > i read this document over with fresh eyes and tried to ignore any history. > > Summary: Publication considered harmful > > Reasons: This document calls itself

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-huque-dnsop-multi-provider-dnssec

Support adoption this is actually a needed document, due to the fact that many "high value zones" want to use multiple vendors. Olafur On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 8:26 PM, Tim Wicinski wrote: > > We've had some interest in moving this document forward, and the chairs > wanted to kick off this

Re: [DNSOP] QNAME minimisation on the standards track?

> On 17 Jul 2018, at 17:35, Paul Wouters wrote: > > On Tue, 17 Jul 2018, tjw ietf wrote: > >> Subject: Re: [DNSOP] QNAME minimisation on the standards track? >> I’d like to see a more fleshed out operational considerations section. > > That would be good indeed. Especially with respect to