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
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
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
--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
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
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
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.
> >>
>
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
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
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
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
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
--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
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
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
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
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
--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
>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
--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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
--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
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
--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
31 matches
Mail list logo