Looking at
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-andrews-full-service-resolvers-02.txt
We need a much shorter title, especially as this is not about
"full service" resolvers. If we keep calling it that,
it'll suffer the same fate as the draft we used to call
in-addr-requred.
How about "Locally-served Zones" or some such
name?
This draft affirms the role of split-DNS in operations. (In
that it says:
"If using empty zones one should not use the same NS and SOA records
as used on the public Internet servers as that will make it harder to
"If using empty zones one should not use the same NS and SOA records
as used on the public Internet servers as that will make it harder to
detect leakage from the public Internet
servers.")
I recall resistance to split-brain being voiced at this meeting:
http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/05mar/dnsop.html (which *still* does
not have the minutes attached to it as appears here:
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/msg03378.html)
draft-durand-dnsop-dont-publish-00.txt
goals: restart talk on what should be published or
not in DNS. issues:
ambiguity, unreachability, new
v6 stuff: transition phase,
globally unique local
addrs recommendation:
when publishing multiple
addresses take care to not publish at the same time
addrs designed to be globally unique
and addrs that
goals: restart talk on what should be published or
...
keith moore: if you're seeing limited scope
addresses published in DNS then
that's a sign of
other problems
and it is not DNS' task to solve
john schnizlein: split-DNS is ...
rob austein: I declare split-DNS out of topic for
rob austein: i hear interest in this draft
(...the draft died of "no comments" at the Vancouver or
Dallas meeting...)
and later:
draft-krishnaswamy-dnsop-split-view...
suresh krishnaswamy: documents a way to config
split-DNS with DNSSEC. This document is not about
information hiding.
split-views and DNSSEC may seem
mutually conflicting.
keith moore: example doesn't show apps
rob austein: were not here to debate split dns in
general, this is limited to DNSSEC applied to split
DNS given that split DNS will be used
regardless
ed lewis: split-view is essential, good to get it
documented
sam weiler: disagree with keith
bill manning: advance it. the philosophical issues
are not a topic for this WG
russ mundy: important to get modern documents on how
to get DNSSEC working in present
environments
suresh krishnaswamy: documents a way to config
keith moore: example doesn't show apps
rob austein: were not here to debate split dns in
ed lewis: split-view is essential, good to get it
sam weiler: disagree with keith
bill manning: advance it. the philosophical issues
russ mundy: important to get modern documents on how
If we embrace this document, we embrace split-DNS.
At 18:49 +0200 6/14/06, Peter Koch wrote:
>Dear WG,
>
>we have a request for adopting draft-andrews-full-service-resolvers (currently
>in version -02) as a dnsop wg item. The Dallas minutes say we have 10
>volunteers for review, the current author would act as document editor.
>There was discussion in Dallas and on the list and the content and direction
>of the draft looks stable, with some editorial work still to do. Given that
>we have shortened our queue of open items, the document fits within our
>charter and the amount of remaining work is moderate, I'd like to ask
>for consent for adoption of this draft as a wg document.
>
>If you disagree, please speak up asap, so we could have the draft as a -00
>submitted by June 19th. With the reasoning above, I'll take silence as consent.
>
>Thanks & apologies for the short notice!
>
>-Peter
>.
>dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________
>web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html
>mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html
>
>we have a request for adopting draft-andrews-full-service-resolvers (currently
>in version -02) as a dnsop wg item. The Dallas minutes say we have 10
>volunteers for review, the current author would act as document editor.
>There was discussion in Dallas and on the list and the content and direction
>of the draft looks stable, with some editorial work still to do. Given that
>we have shortened our queue of open items, the document fits within our
>charter and the amount of remaining work is moderate, I'd like to ask
>for consent for adoption of this draft as a wg document.
>
>If you disagree, please speak up asap, so we could have the draft as a -00
>submitted by June 19th. With the reasoning above, I'll take silence as consent.
>
>Thanks & apologies for the short notice!
>
>-Peter
>.
>dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________
>web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html
>mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar
Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar
Nothin' more exciting than going to the printer to watch the
toner drain...
