Re: Last Call: (Resource Records for EUI-48 and EUI-64 Addresses in the DNS) to Proposed Standard

2013-05-20 Thread joel jaeggli
On 5/20/13 6:42 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: On 21/05/2013 13:06, John C Klensin wrote: --On Monday, May 20, 2013 19:49 -0400 Rob Austein 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 spac

Re: Deployment of standards compliant nameservers

2013-05-20 Thread Mark Andrews
Keith asked for a ID. Filename:draft-andrews-dns-no-response-issue Revision:00 Title: A Common Operational Problem in DNS Servers - Failure To Respond. Creation date: 2013-05-21 Group: Individual Submission Number of pages: 5 URL: http://www.iet

Re: Last Call: (Resource Records for EUI-48 and EUI-64 Addresses in the DNS) to Proposed Standard

2013-05-20 Thread Rob Austein
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 lik

Re: Last Call: (Resource Records for EUI-48 and EUI-64 Addresses in the DNS) to Proposed Standard

2013-05-20 Thread John C Klensin
--On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 13:42 +1200 Brian E Carpenter 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 since there is an I

Re: Deployment of standards compliant nameservers

2013-05-20 Thread Mark Andrews
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 com

Re: Deployment of standards compliant nameservers

2013-05-20 Thread manning bill
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 o

Re: Deployment of standards compliant nameservers

2013-05-20 Thread Mark Andrews
In message <7e5b1b3d-8af1-4ffe-bda2-47efb6d35...@vpnc.org>, Paul Hoffman writes: > On May 20, 2013, at 6:23 PM, Mark Andrews 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. > >> >

Re: Last Call: (Resource Records for EUI-48 and EUI-64 Addresses in the DNS) to Proposed Standard

2013-05-20 Thread Donald Eastlake
Hi, On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:06 PM, John C Klensin 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 scheme f

Re: Deployment of standards compliant nameservers

2013-05-20 Thread Keith Moore
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 nex

Re: Last Call: (Resource Records for EUI-48 and EUI-64 Addresses in the DNS) to Proposed Standard

2013-05-20 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 21/05/2013 13:06, John C Klensin wrote: > > --On Monday, May 20, 2013 19:49 -0400 Rob Austein > 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

Re: Deployment of standards compliant nameservers

2013-05-20 Thread Paul Hoffman
On May 20, 2013, at 6:23 PM, Mark Andrews 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 series

Re: Deployment of standards compliant nameservers

2013-05-20 Thread Mark Andrews
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 ge

Re: Last Call: (Resource Records for EUI-48 and EUI-64 Addresses in the DNS) to Proposed Standard

2013-05-20 Thread John C Klensin
--On Monday, May 20, 2013 19:49 -0400 Rob Austein 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 have a

Re: Deployment of standards compliant nameservers

2013-05-20 Thread manning bill
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 no

Deployment of standards compliant nameservers

2013-05-20 Thread Mark Andrews
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 names

Re: Last Call: (Resource Records for EUI-48 and EUI-64 Addresses in the DNS) to Proposed Standard

2013-05-20 Thread SM
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 what

Re: Last Call: (Resource Records for EUI-48 and EUI-64 Addresses in the DNS) to Proposed Standard

2013-05-20 Thread Rob Austein
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

Re: Last Call: (Resource Records for EUI-48 and EUI-64 Addresses in the DNS) to Proposed Standard

2013-05-20 Thread John C Klensin
--On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 08:08 +1200 Brian E Carpenter 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 that the querier alread

Re: Last Call: (Resource Records for EUI-48 and EUI-64 Addresses in the DNS) to Proposed Standard

2013-05-20 Thread Brian E Carpenter
>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. ... >Thes

Re: Last Call: (Resource Records for EUI-48 and EUI-64 Addresses in the DNS) to Proposed Standard

2013-05-20 Thread John C Klensin
--On Monday, May 20, 2013 09:55 -0700 joel jaeggli 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 in the R

Re: Last Call: (Resource Records for EUI-48 and EUI-64 Addresses in the DNS) to Proposed Standard

2013-05-20 Thread Donald Eastlake
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

Re: Last Call: (Resource Records for EUI-48 and EUI-64 Addresses in the DNS) to Proposed Standard

2013-05-20 Thread SM
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' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits fina

Re: Last Call: (Resource Records for EUI-48 and EUI-64 Addresses in the DNS) to Proposed Standard

2013-05-20 Thread joel jaeggli
On 5/20/13 8:56 AM, John C Klensin wrote: --On Monday, May 20, 2013 07:53 -0700 joel jaeggli 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-ba

Re: Is this an elephant? [Was: call for ideas: tail-heavy IETF process]

2013-05-20 Thread Andy Bierman
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 7:29 PM, Keith Moore wrote: > 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 the latter, w

Re: Is this an elephant? [Was: call for ideas: tail-heavy IETF process]

2013-05-20 Thread Andy Bierman
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Keith Moore wrote: > On 05/17/2013 04:36 PM, Yoav Nir wrote: > >> On May 17, 2013, at 6:37 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: >> >> On 5/17/2013 7:01 AM, Keith Moore wrote: >>> But WGs should be able to periodically summarize what they're doing - what problem they

Re: Last Call: (Resource Records for EUI-48 and EUI-64 Addresses in the DNS) to Proposed Standard

2013-05-20 Thread Barry Leiba
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 > an

Re: Last Call: (Resource Records for EUI-48 and EUI-64 Addresses in the DNS) to Proposed Standard

2013-05-20 Thread Donald Eastlake
Hi John, On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:56 AM, John C Klensin wrote: > --On Monday, May 20, 2013 07:53 -0700 joel jaeggli > 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 be

Re: Last Call: (Resource Records for EUI-48 and EUI-64 Addresses in the DNS) to Proposed Standard

2013-05-20 Thread Paul Hoffman
On May 20, 2013, at 8:56 AM, John C Klensin 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 with at least

Re: Last Call: (Resource Records for EUI-48 and EUI-64 Addresses in the DNS) to Proposed Standard

2013-05-20 Thread John C Klensin
--On Monday, May 20, 2013 07:53 -0700 joel jaeggli 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 ind

Re: Last Call: (Resource Records for EUI-48 and EUI-64 Addresses in the DNS) to Proposed Standard

2013-05-20 Thread joel jaeggli
On 5/20/13 7:18 AM, John C Klensin wrote: --On Monday, May 20, 2013 06:44 -0700 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' as Proposed Standard The IESG p

Re: Last Call: (Resource Records for EUI-48 and EUI-64 Addresses in the DNS) to Proposed Standard

2013-05-20 Thread John C Klensin
--On Monday, May 20, 2013 06:44 -0700 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' >as Proposed > Standard > > The IESG plans to make a decision in t