--On Monday, May 20, 2013 06:44 -0700 The IESG
iesg-secret...@ietf.org wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter
to consider the following document:
- 'Resource Records for EUI-48 and EUI-64 Addresses in the DNS'
draft-jabley-dnsext-eui48-eui64-rrtypes-03.txt
On 5/20/13 7:18 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Monday, May 20, 2013 06:44 -0700 The IESG
iesg-secret...@ietf.org wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter
to consider the following document:
- 'Resource Records for EUI-48 and EUI-64 Addresses in the DNS'
--On Monday, May 20, 2013 07:53 -0700 joel jaeggli
joe...@bogus.com wrote:
...
This is not my primary (or even secondary) area of expertise
but, given that the RR space is not unlimited even though it
is large, wouldn't it be better to have a single RRtype for
IEEE-based EUIs with a flag or
On May 20, 2013, at 8:56 AM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
However, if
(i) the expert review consists largely of making sure
that the template contains the right information and the
ducks are not obviously out of line rather than a
design/architectural review
Hi John,
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:56 AM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
--On Monday, May 20, 2013 07:53 -0700 joel jaeggli
joe...@bogus.com wrote:
...
This is not my primary (or even secondary) area of expertise
but, given that the RR space is not unlimited even though it
is
Just on the writeup tooling question:
p.s. I've tried reading your shepherd writeup now in three
different browsers. It appears to be formatted for extremely
long (paragraph-length) lines, with no provision for automatic
wrapping to fit the page frame. That means that trying to read
and
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.comwrote:
On 05/17/2013 04:36 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
On May 17, 2013, at 6:37 PM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
On 5/17/2013 7:01 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
But WGs should be able to periodically summarize what they're
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 7:29 PM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.comwrote:
On 05/17/2013 10:21 PM, Andy Bierman wrote:
I notice that nowhere on this list is any mention of the charter
milestones
or dates. Is the Foo Proto draft due in 14 months or is it 14 months
behind
schedule? If
On 5/20/13 8:56 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Monday, May 20, 2013 07:53 -0700 joel jaeggli
joe...@bogus.com wrote:
...
This is not my primary (or even secondary) area of expertise
but, given that the RR space is not unlimited even though it
is large, wouldn't it be better to have a single
At 06:44 20-05-2013, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Resource Records for EUI-48 and EUI-64 Addresses in the DNS'
draft-jabley-dnsext-eui48-eui64-rrtypes-03.txt as Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a
People were already storing MAC addresses in DNS for the reason given
in the draft and perhaps others, it is just that they were doing so in
a variety of proprietary ways.
Thanks,
Donald
=
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA
--On Monday, May 20, 2013 09:55 -0700 joel jaeggli
joe...@bogus.com wrote:
I don't know who the current expert is and, for the moment, am
glad I don't and don't intend to check. I believe there is
broad consensus in the community that having something as
significant as an RRTYPE documented
Publication of EUI-48 or EUI-64 addresses in the global DNS may
result in privacy issues in the form of unique trackable identities.
This might also result in such MAC addresses being spoofed, thereby allowing
some sort of direct attack. So it isn't just a privacy concern.
...
These
--On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 08:08 +1200 Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
These potential concerns can be mitigated through
restricting access to zones containing EUI48 or EUI64 RRs
or storing such information under a domain name whose
construction requires
At Mon, 20 May 2013 10:18:21 -0400, John C. Klensin wrote:
This is not my primary (or even secondary) area of expertise
but, given that the RR space is not unlimited even though it is
large, wouldn't it be better to have a single RRtype for
IEEE-based EUIs with a flag or other indicator in
Hi Donald,
At 12:10 20-05-2013, Donald Eastlake wrote:
People were already storing MAC addresses in DNS for the reason given
in the draft and perhaps others, it is just that they were doing so in
a variety of proprietary ways.
Thanks for the explanation. I'll make a general comment.
From
I call upon the IESG to discuss with IANA, the RIRs, ICANN
and TLD operators how to deal with the problems caused by the
deployment of non standards compliant nameservers.
For a long time there have been operational problems
cause by the deployment of non standards compliant
I believe that there are a couple of problems with this plea…
1) - The IETF has -never- tested for or assured compliance with their document
series.
2) - The only DNS test suite I am aware of is the older TAHI test suite from
http://www.tahi.org/ - which was focused on IPv6 development and is
--On Monday, May 20, 2013 19:49 -0400 Rob Austein
s...@hactrn.net wrote:
At Mon, 20 May 2013 10:18:21 -0400, John C. Klensin wrote:
This is not my primary (or even secondary) area of expertise
but, given that the RR space is not unlimited even though it
is large, wouldn't it be better to
In message 6a13ceb4-8906-4ec5-9210-571d5474e...@isi.edu, manning bill writes:
I believe that there are a couple of problems with this plea.
1) - The IETF has -never- tested for or assured compliance with their
document series.
Which has what to do with requesting that a known problem get
On May 20, 2013, at 6:23 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
In message 6a13ceb4-8906-4ec5-9210-571d5474e...@isi.edu, manning bill
writes:
I believe that there are a couple of problems with this plea.
1) - The IETF has -never- tested for or assured compliance with their
document
On 21/05/2013 13:06, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Monday, May 20, 2013 19:49 -0400 Rob Austein
s...@hactrn.net wrote:
At Mon, 20 May 2013 10:18:21 -0400, John C. Klensin wrote:
This is not my primary (or even secondary) area of expertise
but, given that the RR space is not unlimited even
It seems like a first step might be to set up a web page and/or write up
an I-D with
a) a description of the problem
b) documentation a procedure and/or code that can be used to test name
server software for compliance
c) recommendations for zone operators that delegate to other zones
The
Hi,
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:06 PM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
...
...
The discussion in 3.1 clearly applies to relatively complex
schemes like NAPTR, but it is not clear that it has anything to
do with this case. In particular, if I correctly understand the
IEEE's allocation
In message 7e5b1b3d-8af1-4ffe-bda2-47efb6d35...@vpnc.org, Paul Hoffman writes:
On May 20, 2013, at 6:23 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
In message 6a13ceb4-8906-4ec5-9210-571d5474e...@isi.edu, manning bill
writes:
I believe that there are a couple of problems with this plea.
1)
as mentioned earlier, only -ONE- known, public DNS conformance test suite has
existed
and it was shut down last year due to lack of use.
since you want the courts involved, you are making some significant
presumptions about the
liability of adherence to voluntary standards.
dead issue … move
In message 519ad17d.8040...@network-heretics.com, Keith Moore writes:
It seems like a first step might be to set up a web page and/or write up
an I-D with
a) a description of the problem
b) documentation a procedure and/or code that can be used to test name
server software for compliance
--On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 13:42 +1200 Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
...
I'm not opposed to having two separate RRTYPEs -- I just want
to see the rationale. And what passes for use cases in the
draft appears to me to be completely silent on that issue.
Especially
At Mon, 20 May 2013 21:06:53 -0400, John C. Klensin wrote:
I've reread 5507 and did so again before writing my second note
today. I don't see that it helps.
I was mostly referring to the discussion in section 3.1.
The discussion in 3.1 clearly applies to relatively complex
schemes like
The IESG has received a request from the Metric Blocks for use with
RTCP's Extended Report Framework WG (xrblock) to consider the following
document:
- 'RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block for Discard
Count metric Reporting'
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-14.txt as
30 matches
Mail list logo
