Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-nygren-dnsop-svcb-httpssvc

[Eric Orth]

On behalf of Chrome DNS, I support adoption and plan to stay engaged on
this.  While I don't think the draft is perfect yet, we like the general
approach and are interested in exploring it further.
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-nygren-dnsop-svcb-httpssvc

[John R Levine]

On Mon, 7 Oct 2019, Tim Wicinski wrote:

I believe the browser vendors have made such an agreement. We should get
confirmation.


That's about 2/3 of it, but I hope they stay engaged to avoid an outcome 
where we make changes that seem OK to us and they come back at the end and 
say no, we're not going to do THAT.


Regards,
John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-nygren-dnsop-svcb-httpssvc

[Tim Wicinski]

Also, for folks who supported adoption in the other thread, we're counting
them.

Tim


On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 2:02 PM Tim Wicinski  wrote:

> John
>
> I believe the browser vendors have made such an agreement. We should get
> confirmation.
>
> Stephen
>
> I agree with you on solving the larger ESNI problem. The chairs will put
> that on our list for the authors.
>
> Thanks
>
> On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 1:45 PM John Levine  wrote:
>
>> In article > e...@mail.gmail.com> you write:
>> >Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for adoption
>> >by DNSOP, and comments to the list, clearly stating your view.
>> >
>> >Please also indicate if you are willing to contribute text, review, etc.
>>
>> I think we should adopt and will review, but I would also like some
>> indication from browser makers that they're interested so we're not
>> wasting our time.
>>
>>
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-nygren-dnsop-svcb-httpssvc

[Tim Wicinski]

John

I believe the browser vendors have made such an agreement. We should get
confirmation.

Stephen

I agree with you on solving the larger ESNI problem. The chairs will put
that on our list for the authors.

Thanks

On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 1:45 PM John Levine  wrote:

> In article  e...@mail.gmail.com> you write:
> >Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for adoption
> >by DNSOP, and comments to the list, clearly stating your view.
> >
> >Please also indicate if you are willing to contribute text, review, etc.
>
> I think we should adopt and will review, but I would also like some
> indication from browser makers that they're interested so we're not
> wasting our time.
>
>
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-nygren-dnsop-svcb-httpssvc

[John Levine]

In article 
 you write:
>Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for adoption
>by DNSOP, and comments to the list, clearly stating your view.
>
>Please also indicate if you are willing to contribute text, review, etc.

I think we should adopt and will review, but I would also like some
indication from browser makers that they're interested so we're not
wasting our time.

___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoptions: draft-lhotka-dnsop-iana-class-type-yang

[Paul Wouters]

On Mon, 7 Oct 2019, Benno Overeinder wrote:


Questions to WG:

1) iana-class-type-yang document to OPSAWG?


I would assume most people here will the same about the document,
wherever it is discussed ? So this option seems odd.


2) follow-up work on YANG data models for DNS servers in DNSOP?


Speaking for myself, as long as we are not populating RFCs with
obsoleted DNS data or just create RFC with copies of IANA registries,
I'm fine with helping on a document. But not if it is a blind copy
and paste from IANA (whether at DNSOP or OPSAWG)

Paul

___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-nygren-dnsop-svcb-httpssvc

[Christopher Wood]

On Mon, Oct 7, 2019, at 7:37 AM, Tim Wicinski wrote:
> Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for adoption
> by DNSOP, and comments to the list, clearly stating your view.
>
> Please also indicate if you are willing to contribute text, review, etc.

I have reviewed the document and think it should be adopted. It addresses 
several shortcomings of the currently specified ESNI record. I'm also willing 
to review it again as we go forward. 

Thanks to the authors for their work!

Best,
Chris

___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-nygren-dnsop-svcb-httpssvc

[Joe Abley]

On 7 Oct 2019, at 10:37, Tim Wicinski  wrote:

> This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-nygren-dnsop-svcb-httpssvc
> 
> The draft is available here: 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nygren-dnsop-svcb-httpssvc/
> 
> Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for adoption
> by DNSOP, and comments to the list, clearly stating your view.

I support adoption of this document.

> Please also indicate if you are willing to contribute text, review, etc.

I am willing to contribute text, review, etc.

> This call for adoption ends: 21 October 2019


Joe


signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoptions: draft-lhotka-dnsop-iana-class-type-yang

[Benno Overeinder]

Hi Normen and DNSOP working group,

On 02/10/2019 22:10, Normen B. Kowalewski wrote:
> Is there is still any open issue that keeps people from seeing the reuse of
> the general purpose DNS definitinons in the IANA registry in a formal model
> and by YANG as useful enough for supporting adotion?

The chairs have discussed options to proceed with the draft.  There was
some support for adoption from the DNSOP WG, but not much.  We do want
to have sufficient support in the WG, and the commitment of people to
review and contribute to the draft.

Alternatively we can ask OPSAWG to adopt the draft.  Other NETCONF/YANG
documents have previously been adopted by OPSAWG and we can request an
early review of the document.

The following question is very relevant for follow-up work, namely
whether the DNSOP WG would be interested in the further development of
YANG data models for DNS servers or other devices (for example those for
DNS telemetry).

Operators in DNSOP WG, please speak-up that this is something that
operators need and ask for.

Obviously DNSOP expertise would certainly be needed in this case, and
the proper place is DNSOP WG.

Questions to WG:

1) iana-class-type-yang document to OPSAWG?

2) follow-up work on YANG data models for DNS servers in DNSOP?


Best regards,

-- Benno


> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: DNSOP [mailto:dnsop-boun...@ietf.org] Im Auftrag von Normen Kowalewski
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 23. Juli 2019 00:04
> An: Ladislav Lhotka
> Cc: Benno Overeinder; DNSOP WG
> Betreff: Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoptions:
> draft-lhotka-dnsop-iana-class-type-yang
> 
> Dear DNSWG,
> 
> I also support the adoption. 
> 
> Normen Kowalewski 
> 
>> On 22. Jul 2019, at 20:13, Ladislav Lhotka  wrote:
>>
>> Benno Overeinder  writes:
>>
>>> Dear DNSOP WG, The draft YANG Types for DNS Classes and Resource Record
> Types, draft-lhotka-dnsop-iana-class-type-yang, has been presented at the
> IETF 103 and IETF 104. During the IETF 104 meeting, the authors asked for
> adoption by the DNSOP WG.  The feedback from the DNSOP WG room was positive
> and also previous discussions on the DNSOP mailing list (dd. 12 November
> 2018) were also supportive. This starts a Call for Adoption for:
> draft-lhotka-dnsop-iana-class-type-yang The draft is available here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lhotka-dnsop-iana-class-type-yang/
> Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for adoption by
> DNSOP, and comments to the list, clearly stating your view.
>>
>> As a co-author, I support the adoption.
>>
>> Thanks, Lada
>>> Please also indicate if you are willing to contribute text, review, 
>>> etc. This call for adoption ends: 29 July 2019 Thanks, Benno 
>>> Overeinder DNSOP co-chair 
>>> ___ DNSOP mailing list 
>>> DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>>
>> --
>> Ladislav Lhotka Head, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67
>>
>> ___
>> DNSOP mailing list
>> DNSOP@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
> 
> ___
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
> 
> ___
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
> 


-- 
Benno J. Overeinder
NLnet Labs
https://www.nlnetlabs.nl/

___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-nygren-dnsop-svcb-httpssvc

[Ted Lemon]

On Oct 7, 2019, at 9:37 AM, Tim Wicinski  wrote:
> Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for adoption
> by DNSOP, and comments to the list, clearly stating your view.

I think this is important work, and support adoption.

___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-nygren-dnsop-svcb-httpssvc

[Tommy Pauly]

I support adoption of this document—although I agree that the names do need 
some bike shedding if/when it is adopted! This is a good mechanism to use for 
ESNI keys and Alt-Svc. I also think that the extensibility it provides is 
important property (for example, I am proposing to use it for designating 
encrypted DNS servers in 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pauly-dprive-adaptive-dns-privacy). 

I am also willing to contribute text and review the document.

Thanks,
Tommy

> On Oct 7, 2019, at 7:37 AM, Tim Wicinski  wrote:
> 
> 
> All
> 
> We want to thank the authors for working on this.  The chairs
> feel that part of the discussion around this document would be to
> resolve:
>   - ANAME/HTTPSSVC possible overlaps
>   - The RR Type Name (no one seems to be in love with current names)
> 
> This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-nygren-dnsop-svcb-httpssvc
> 
> The draft is available here: 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nygren-dnsop-svcb-httpssvc/ 
> 
> 
> Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for adoption
> by DNSOP, and comments to the list, clearly stating your view.
> 
> Please also indicate if you are willing to contribute text, review, etc.
> 
> This call for adoption ends: 21 October 2019
> 
> Thanks,
> tim wicinski
> DNSOP co-chair
> 
> ___
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-nygren-dnsop-svcb-httpssvc

[Loganaden Velvindron]

On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 6:37 PM Tim Wicinski  wrote:
>
>
> All
>
> We want to thank the authors for working on this.  The chairs
> feel that part of the discussion around this document would be to
> resolve:
>   - ANAME/HTTPSSVC possible overlaps
>   - The RR Type Name (no one seems to be in love with current names)
>
> This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-nygren-dnsop-svcb-httpssvc
>
> The draft is available here: 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nygren-dnsop-svcb-httpssvc/
>
I support adoption of this document.

> Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for adoption
> by DNSOP, and comments to the list, clearly stating your view.
>
> Please also indicate if you are willing to contribute text, review, etc.
>
> This call for adoption ends: 21 October 2019
>
> Thanks,
> tim wicinski
> DNSOP co-chair
>
> ___
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-nygren-dnsop-svcb-httpssvc

[Vladimír Čunát]

Hello; I do support adoption.

On 10/7/19 4:52 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:

The main caveat for me is I don't know if it'd be worth
publishing an RFC if this doesn't end up getting deployed
in browsers. So getting clarity there as early as poss
would be good if we can.


I agree, but I wouldn't block *adoption* on that.  The "browsers" 
(client implementers) may have some comments on the contents of the text 
etc. and it seems much better to have one particular WG (and text) to 
discuss.  My understanding is that the authors had discussed with 
(some?) major implementers and they seemed inclined to like the 
approach.  (I heard that on some recent IETF presentations of HTTPSSVC 
plans, IIRC.)


--Vladimir

___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-nygren-dnsop-svcb-httpssvc

[Stephen Farrell]

Hiya,

On 07/10/2019 15:37, Tim Wicinski wrote:
> All
> 
> We want to thank the authors for working on this.  The chairs
> feel that part of the discussion around this document would be to
> resolve:
>   - ANAME/HTTPSSVC possible overlaps
>   - The RR Type Name (no one seems to be in love with current names)
> 
> This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-nygren-dnsop-svcb-httpssvc
> 
> The draft is available here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nygren-dnsop-svcb-httpssvc/
> 
> Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for adoption
> by DNSOP, and comments to the list, clearly stating your view.
> 
> Please also indicate if you are willing to contribute text, review, etc.

I support adoption. If it looks like it'll be accepted
by browsers for ESNI purposes, then I'll be implementing
too.

If the WG do adopt this, then we really have to sort out
(with the TLS WG) whether or not this will be the one
and only way of publishing ESNIKeys. I hope the answer
will be: "yes, this is *the* way to do that" but that'd
mean we'd also need to get it right for other uses of TLS
with ESNI and not just HTTPS. (Should be doable though.)

The main caveat for me is I don't know if it'd be worth
publishing an RFC if this doesn't end up getting deployed
in browsers. So getting clarity there as early as poss
would be good if we can.

Cheers,
S.


> 
> This call for adoption ends: 21 October 2019
> 
> Thanks,
> tim wicinski
> DNSOP co-chair
> 
> 
> ___
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
> 


0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

[DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-nygren-dnsop-svcb-httpssvc

[Tim Wicinski]

All

We want to thank the authors for working on this.  The chairs
feel that part of the discussion around this document would be to
resolve:
  - ANAME/HTTPSSVC possible overlaps
  - The RR Type Name (no one seems to be in love with current names)

This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-nygren-dnsop-svcb-httpssvc

The draft is available here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nygren-dnsop-svcb-httpssvc/

Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for adoption
by DNSOP, and comments to the list, clearly stating your view.

Please also indicate if you are willing to contribute text, review, etc.

This call for adoption ends: 21 October 2019

Thanks,
tim wicinski
DNSOP co-chair
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop