[only now reviewing this thread...]
Stephane Bortzmeyer bortzme...@nic.fr writes:
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:26:39AM +1000,
Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote
a message of 52 lines which said:
I'm not sure what the solution should be but regular audits of
delegated nameservers by
Subject: Re: Deployment of standards compliant nameservers Date: Wed, May 22,
2013 at 12:29:58PM + Quoting Yoav Nir (y...@checkpoint.com):
Seems like a tough sell to me.
Not worse than BCP38 ;-)
OTOH, I have _personally_ done this. I introduced and enforced and got set
into policy
--On Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:49 +1000 Mark Andrews
ma...@isc.org wrote:
Asking people to run a nameserver which responds to queries
isn't unreasonable by any stretch of the imagination
regardless of their economic circumstances. The nameservers
that people used in the 1980's did this
--On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 11:07 +0200 Stephane Bortzmeyer
bortzme...@nic.fr wrote:
...
Although these tests certainly contributed to the good
technical quality of the name servers, they were removed both
for commercial reasons (a registry has to make money to pay
its employees) and because
On May 22, 2013, at 3:10 PM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
--On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 11:07 +0200 Stephane Bortzmeyer
bortzme...@nic.fr wrote:
...
Although these tests certainly contributed to the good
technical quality of the name servers, they were removed both
for
Subject: Re: Deployment of standards compliant nameservers
On May 22, 2013, at 3:10 PM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
--On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 11:07 +0200 Stephane Bortzmeyer
bortzme...@nic.fr wrote:
...
Although these tests certainly contributed to the good
technical quality
--On Wednesday, May 22, 2013 12:29 + Yoav Nir
y...@checkpoint.com wrote:
Occasional fantasies about IETF enforcement power and the
Protocol Police notwithstanding, it seems to me that, if one
wanted to require standards-conforming nameservers, the most
(and maybe only) effective way to
At 05:56 22-05-2013, Moriarty, Kathleen wrote:
providers. While tying this to contracts seems like a good idea,
that is out of our hands at the IETF. If we went down the path of
enforcement through contracts, I wouldn't view this as picking
fights, but rather a proactive service to 'help'
In message 6.2.5.6.2.20130522123025.0b3ef...@resistor.net, SM writes:
At 05:56 22-05-2013, Moriarty, Kathleen wrote:
providers. While tying this to contracts seems like a good idea,
that is out of our hands at the IETF. If we went down the path of
enforcement through contracts, I wouldn't
In message 9506594e9e3cb989afbc0...@jck-hp8200.jck.com, John C Klensin writes:
--On Wednesday, May 22, 2013 12:29 + Yoav Nir
y...@checkpoint.com wrote:
Occasional fantasies about IETF enforcement power and the
Protocol Police notwithstanding, it seems to me that, if one
wanted
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:
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:26:39AM +1000,
Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote
a message of 52 lines which said:
I'm not sure what the solution should be but regular audits of
delegated nameservers by infrastructure operator and removal of
delegations after a grace period
Let's not reinvent
In message 20130521090727.gb17...@nic.fr, Stephane Bortzmeyer writes:
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:26:39AM +1000,
Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote
a message of 52 lines which said:
I'm not sure what the solution should be but regular audits of
delegated nameservers by infrastructure
On 21 May 2013, at 02:44, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote:
p.s. I wonder if the problem you describe might at least partially be caused
by DNS proxies and interception proxies, including but not limited to those
incorporated in consumer-grade routers.
Those are already
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 6:44 PM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.comwrote:
p.s. I wonder if the problem you describe might at least partially be
caused by DNS proxies and interception proxies, including but not limited
to those incorporated in consumer-grade routers.
Given the funny
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
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 nameservers that
fail
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 nameservers that
fail
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
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 nameservers that
fail to respond to DNS queries directed at them or respond incorrectly.
The biggest problem with respect
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
23 matches
Mail list logo
