Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-catalog-zones-06.txt
On 7/7/2022 5:32 AM, Willem Toorop wrote: Dear dnsop, This draft describes a mechanism for automatic provisioning of zones among authoritative name servers by way of distributing a catalog of those zones encoded in a regular DNS zone. The version's focus was finalizing for Working Group Last Call. We made sure that all MUSTs in the document have a companion description that tells what to do if that MUST condition is not met. Also the `group` property restrictions have been loosened to accommodate multiple sets of catalog consumers offering different sets of group properties. Not to be a pedant and having not read the document, don't you mean "SHOULD" above rather than "MUST"? MUST's are absolute requirements that should have no wiggle room. SHOULD's are the requirements where you probably need to explain what to do if the condition isn't met. One brief example taken from your document (section 4.1): Catalog consumers SHOULD ignore NS record at apex. However, at least one is still required so that catalog zones are syntactically correct DNS zones. A single NS RR with a NSDNAME field containing the absolute name "invalid." is RECOMMENDED [RFC2606][RFC6761]. Instead: "Catalog consumer MUST ignore the NS record at the apex of the catalog zone. Catalog zones SHOULD include a single NS RR with a NSDNAME containing the absolute name 'invalid.', but consumers MUST NOT error out if this is not present. Non-catalog clients will take an error as expected when retrieving the zone. Non-catalog-aware servers may fail to load or serve the catalog zone if this NS RR is absent." (The "will" and "may" in the last two sentences are lower case as they are explanatory and not requirements. The last sentence explains the probable result of omitting the NS RR.) My $.02. Mike The authors consider this version to be complete to the best of our ability and we'd like to ask the working group to proceed with this document for Working Group Last Call. Op 07-07-2022 om 11:03 schreefinternet-dra...@ietf.org: A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations WG of the IETF. Title : DNS Catalog Zones Authors : Peter van Dijk Libor Peltan Ondrej Sury Willem Toorop Kees Monshouwer Peter Thomassen Aram Sargsyan Filename: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-catalog-zones-06.txt Pages : 20 Date: 2022-07-07 Abstract: This document describes a method for automatic DNS zone provisioning among DNS primary and secondary nameservers by storing and transferring the catalog of zones to be provisioned as one or more regular DNS zones. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-catalog-zones/ There is also an HTML version available at: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-catalog-zones-06.html A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-catalog-zones-06 Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts ___ 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
Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] DNSOP Document Adoption Poll (June 2022)
Hi Benno - On 7/7/2022 3:12 PM, Benno Overeinder wrote: Hi Mike, On 07/07/2022 20:26, Michael StJohns wrote: On 7/7/2022 12:28 PM, Benno Overeinder wrote: Conducting a survey (2 times now) has worked well over the past 1.5 years to prioritise finishing existing work and starting new work. Two years ago we (as a WG) discussed how to manage the workload of the WG and running a poll seemed to be one of the mechanisms to help with that. Using the search terms "poll" and "survey" individually via the DNSOP archive web page, I found the last July email (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/bXDwmPhft5BXFndKs5xI3FjOewE/) which was about prioritization and a bunch of doodle polls about interim WG scheduling. I didn't find any about new work. For the prioritization google thing, I can't actually read the text of the google doc via that link, and I'm not sure what to search for in the mail archive to find the resultant document if indeed it was published to the list. Searching the archives is *very* clumsy. So, depending only on my memory, I seem to remember that other poll was only about dealing with accepted work that hadn't progressed (i.e., kill or keep). Scanning forward from the publication date of that poll, I can't see anyplace where the result of that poll was actually published to the list. The chair's meeting notes of 6 Aug 2021, 20 Aug 2021 and 3 Sept 2021 don't reference the poll. The 19 Nov 2021 notes indicate that another poll was being considered for work prioritization, but I can't find where it was sent, if at all. So, could you send me the link to the DNSOP emails where the results of the previous two surveys were published please? And for that matter where the second prioritization poll was sent out. You are correct, we did have one survey/poll. In my memory they were two different surveys, but it was one survey for prioritising existing work and open questions about adopting new work. The results were presented in the DNSOP WG chairs slides of the IETF 112 meeting. The new work suggested by the WG was dnssec-bootstrapping and dnssec-automation. I was pretty sure I hadn't seen the result of the survey on the list and - to be blunt - it needed to be there if for no other reason than to memorialize the information. As the IETF has noted time and again, decisions are made on the mailing list, not in working group meetings. Meeting presentations are generally ephemera (even more so than IDs), and that limits at least my reliance on them. All that said, the WG chairs get to decide which documents are WG documents (through the determination of consensus), but only within the constraints of the model the WG has agreed upon (RFC 7221 section 2.2 basically). Up to this point, adoption has been by discussion on the mailing list. A change to that should probably be discussed before being implemented. However, going back to the original issue: There was a disconnect that could have been avoided here. The mail message implied/said that the poll was for adoption. The poll header said something different - that it was to select the first 2-3 to be sent out for call for adoption. The actual poll question asked which documents to adopt now. I read the mail message, and jumped into the poll without reading the header and read the poll question only. It took me this last message re-reading things to understand that probably what you thought Tim said is not what I heard. I have this suspicion reading Ted and Brian's messages that they got to the same place as I did. E.g. The poll question should have read: "For the following documents, when should DNSOP send out Calls for Adoption?" with "Now" and "Not Yet, if ever" and "Never" rather than "Adopt Now" etc. Alternately, using the same question you used in the prior survey (Important, Not Important, Indifferent) might have given you the info you needed to prioritize. Tim should have probably followed his earlier inclination and just sent out the six adoption calls. Later, Mike As the notes indicate, we considered starting a poll but ended up not doing so for IETF 113. Thanks for correcting. Regards, -- Benno ___ 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] [Ext] DNSOP Document Adoption Poll (June 2022)
Honestly, since doing any sort of poll is "new", maybe the first poll should have been, is doing this via a poll acceptable as a process/policy thing for the WG? Doing such a poll should include not only how folks feel about using polls for this, but also could ask people to indicate the likelihood that they would participate in future polls, as well as their opinions on how long polls should run? I have not answered the poll in question, FYI, and definitely prefer discussing individual WG items, even if there happen to be a large number of them. I see this as a "vote with your feet" issue. Send many items to the list, and the important ones will get responses (from the perspective of each participant of what is important). The result would basically have a figure-skating-judging element. What matters is not the absolute numbers, what matters is the ordinality (sort order) of participants, upon aggregation. My $0.02. Brian On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 7:58 AM Paul Hoffman wrote: > On Jul 7, 2022, at 6:49 AM, Benno Overeinder wrote: > > Gentle reminder, the poll runs until July 9. > > Can you say how the poll will be used? There was pretty strong push-back > after the original announcement, and it's thus unclear how the poll results > will be acted on. > > --Paul Hoffman > > ___ > 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] [Ext] DNSOP Document Adoption Poll (June 2022)
Hi Mike, On 07/07/2022 20:26, Michael StJohns wrote: On 7/7/2022 12:28 PM, Benno Overeinder wrote: Conducting a survey (2 times now) has worked well over the past 1.5 years to prioritise finishing existing work and starting new work. Two years ago we (as a WG) discussed how to manage the workload of the WG and running a poll seemed to be one of the mechanisms to help with that. Using the search terms "poll" and "survey" individually via the DNSOP archive web page, I found the last July email (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/bXDwmPhft5BXFndKs5xI3FjOewE/) which was about prioritization and a bunch of doodle polls about interim WG scheduling. I didn't find any about new work. For the prioritization google thing, I can't actually read the text of the google doc via that link, and I'm not sure what to search for in the mail archive to find the resultant document if indeed it was published to the list. Searching the archives is *very* clumsy. So, depending only on my memory, I seem to remember that other poll was only about dealing with accepted work that hadn't progressed (i.e., kill or keep). Scanning forward from the publication date of that poll, I can't see anyplace where the result of that poll was actually published to the list. The chair's meeting notes of 6 Aug 2021, 20 Aug 2021 and 3 Sept 2021 don't reference the poll. The 19 Nov 2021 notes indicate that another poll was being considered for work prioritization, but I can't find where it was sent, if at all. So, could you send me the link to the DNSOP emails where the results of the previous two surveys were published please? And for that matter where the second prioritization poll was sent out. You are correct, we did have one survey/poll. In my memory they were two different surveys, but it was one survey for prioritising existing work and open questions about adopting new work. The results were presented in the DNSOP WG chairs slides of the IETF 112 meeting. The new work suggested by the WG was dnssec-bootstrapping and dnssec-automation. As the notes indicate, we considered starting a poll but ended up not doing so for IETF 113. Thanks for correcting. Regards, -- Benno ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] DNSOP Document Adoption Poll (June 2022)
Hi Benno - On 7/7/2022 12:28 PM, Benno Overeinder wrote: Hi Mike, On 07/07/2022 17:21, Michael StJohns wrote: On 7/7/2022 11:10 AM, Benno Overeinder wrote: It helps us and the WG itself to prioritise WG activities and start a regular WG call for adoption of a number of documents. We will share the results of the poll with the WG and how to make an initial selection of documents that will be included in the WG call for adoption process. We currently have 6 drafts for which the authors have asked WG adoption, but that is too much new work for the WG to work on. Any feedback on improving the process to prioritise work in the WG is welcome. All of that is a good and just reason to send out calls for adoption. But the point of the previous messages was that the poll was not the way to do that. Basically, making a poll choice without providing context and an opportunity for discussion a) lacks transparency (in that when the chairs make a decision, the WG has no basis on which to evaluate that decision), b) lacks nuance (in that the choices provided do not cover some shadings of what to do - e.g., not ready for consideration), c) lacks WG participation (a discussion about a document gets us to a better result than blind voting). I see the points you are making but as we mentioned we will be sharing and discussing the results of the poll, so for transparency of the decision making process and WG participation in this it will be on the WG mailing list. For your concerns wrt. the nuance there should be room during this mailing list discussion. If we're going to be discussing the individual documents, then exactly what use is the poll? Sending out a note that lists the 6 documents and with a request to respond in line with comments on each with respect to adoption and other comments would require exactly the same amount of work from the responders, would provide others with an impetus to also respond, and would provide the chairs with a wealth more information. If additional discussion on a particular document were necessary, a new thread could be created for that document. But, IANADC... :-) If I read your concerns correctly, instead of 6 WG call for adoptions in a short period (or in one go) we will have a phased WG call for adoptions in the next month with 3 candidates and when the WG completes current existing work, another batch of 2, 3 or 4 WG calls for adoption will be issued. And an outcome of the call for adoption can be a yes/no/not ready for consideration/..., as usual. See above. Conducting a survey (2 times now) has worked well over the past 1.5 years to prioritise finishing existing work and starting new work. Two years ago we (as a WG) discussed how to manage the workload of the WG and running a poll seemed to be one of the mechanisms to help with that. Using the search terms "poll" and "survey" individually via the DNSOP archive web page, I found the last July email (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/bXDwmPhft5BXFndKs5xI3FjOewE/) which was about prioritization and a bunch of doodle polls about interim WG scheduling. I didn't find any about new work. For the prioritization google thing, I can't actually read the text of the google doc via that link, and I'm not sure what to search for in the mail archive to find the resultant document if indeed it was published to the list. Searching the archives is *very* clumsy. So, depending only on my memory, I seem to remember that other poll was only about dealing with accepted work that hadn't progressed (i.e., kill or keep). Scanning forward from the publication date of that poll, I can't see anyplace where the result of that poll was actually published to the list. The chair's meeting notes of 6 Aug 2021, 20 Aug 2021 and 3 Sept 2021 don't reference the poll. The 19 Nov 2021 notes indicate that another poll was being considered for work prioritization, but I can't find where it was sent, if at all. So, could you send me the link to the DNSOP emails where the results of the previous two surveys were published please? And for that matter where the second prioritization poll was sent out. Thanks - Mike The fact that the chairs did not respond to the original messages is also a bit problematic. Apologies for not responding to the original messages, but was in no way intended to ignore them. Regards, -- Benno ___ 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] [Ext] DNSOP Document Adoption Poll (June 2022)
Hi Mike, On 07/07/2022 17:21, Michael StJohns wrote: On 7/7/2022 11:10 AM, Benno Overeinder wrote: It helps us and the WG itself to prioritise WG activities and start a regular WG call for adoption of a number of documents. We will share the results of the poll with the WG and how to make an initial selection of documents that will be included in the WG call for adoption process. We currently have 6 drafts for which the authors have asked WG adoption, but that is too much new work for the WG to work on. Any feedback on improving the process to prioritise work in the WG is welcome. All of that is a good and just reason to send out calls for adoption. But the point of the previous messages was that the poll was not the way to do that. Basically, making a poll choice without providing context and an opportunity for discussion a) lacks transparency (in that when the chairs make a decision, the WG has no basis on which to evaluate that decision), b) lacks nuance (in that the choices provided do not cover some shadings of what to do - e.g., not ready for consideration), c) lacks WG participation (a discussion about a document gets us to a better result than blind voting). I see the points you are making but as we mentioned we will be sharing and discussing the results of the poll, so for transparency of the decision making process and WG participation in this it will be on the WG mailing list. For your concerns wrt. the nuance there should be room during this mailing list discussion. If I read your concerns correctly, instead of 6 WG call for adoptions in a short period (or in one go) we will have a phased WG call for adoptions in the next month with 3 candidates and when the WG completes current existing work, another batch of 2, 3 or 4 WG calls for adoption will be issued. And an outcome of the call for adoption can be a yes/no/not ready for consideration/..., as usual. Conducting a survey (2 times now) has worked well over the past 1.5 years to prioritise finishing existing work and starting new work. Two years ago we (as a WG) discussed how to manage the workload of the WG and running a poll seemed to be one of the mechanisms to help with that. The fact that the chairs did not respond to the original messages is also a bit problematic. Apologies for not responding to the original messages, but was in no way intended to ignore them. Regards, -- Benno ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] DNSOP Document Adoption Poll (June 2022)
Hi Benno - On 7/7/2022 11:10 AM, Benno Overeinder wrote: Hi Paul, On 07/07/2022 16:58, Paul Hoffman wrote: On Jul 7, 2022, at 6:49 AM, Benno Overeinder wrote: Gentle reminder, the poll runs until July 9. Can you say how the poll will be used? There was pretty strong push-back after the original announcement, and it's thus unclear how the poll results will be acted on. It helps us and the WG itself to prioritise WG activities and start a regular WG call for adoption of a number of documents. We will share the results of the poll with the WG and how to make an initial selection of documents that will be included in the WG call for adoption process. We currently have 6 drafts for which the authors have asked WG adoption, but that is too much new work for the WG to work on. Any feedback on improving the process to prioritise work in the WG is welcome. All of that is a good and just reason to send out calls for adoption. But the point of the previous messages was that the poll was not the way to do that. Basically, making a poll choice without providing context and an opportunity for discussion a) lacks transparency (in that when the chairs make a decision, the WG has no basis on which to evaluate that decision), b) lacks nuance (in that the choices provided do not cover some shadings of what to do - e.g., not ready for consideration), c) lacks WG participation (a discussion about a document gets us to a better result than blind voting). The fact that the chairs did not respond to the original messages is also a bit problematic. Later, Mike Best, -- Benno ___ 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] [Ext] DNSOP Document Adoption Poll (June 2022)
Hi Paul, On 07/07/2022 16:58, Paul Hoffman wrote: On Jul 7, 2022, at 6:49 AM, Benno Overeinder wrote: Gentle reminder, the poll runs until July 9. Can you say how the poll will be used? There was pretty strong push-back after the original announcement, and it's thus unclear how the poll results will be acted on. It helps us and the WG itself to prioritise WG activities and start a regular WG call for adoption of a number of documents. We will share the results of the poll with the WG and how to make an initial selection of documents that will be included in the WG call for adoption process. We currently have 6 drafts for which the authors have asked WG adoption, but that is too much new work for the WG to work on. Any feedback on improving the process to prioritise work in the WG is welcome. Best, -- Benno ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] DNSOP Document Adoption Poll (June 2022)
On Jul 7, 2022, at 6:49 AM, Benno Overeinder wrote: > Gentle reminder, the poll runs until July 9. Can you say how the poll will be used? There was pretty strong push-back after the original announcement, and it's thus unclear how the poll results will be acted on. --Paul Hoffman smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
[DNSOP] 2nd IETF 114 Call for Agenda Items DNSOP WG
Dear WG, This is the second Call for Agenda Items for the IETF 114, 23-29 July in Philadelphia. DNSOP WG is scheduled on Thursday, 28 July at 13:30-15:30 (EDT/UTC-4). (See for IETF 114 agenda https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/agenda/) Please email the chairs with your requests. *Or* drop us a pull request https://github.com/ietf-wg-dnsop/wg-materials/tree/main/dnsop-ietf114 look for dnsop-ietf114-agenda-requests.md. We have already received a number of agenda time requests, but there is still room for 2 or 3 presentation slots. Please Note: Draft Submission Deadline is Monday 11 July 2022. See https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/important-dates/: 2022-07-11 (Monday): Internet Draft submission cut-off (for all drafts, including -00) by UTC 23:59. Upload using the ID Submission Tool https://datatracker.ietf.org/submit/. Thanks, Suzanne Tim Benno ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Document Adoption Poll (June 2022)
Hi all, Gentle reminder, the poll runs until July 9. Best, -- Benno On 27/06/2022 12:44, Tim Wicinski wrote: All We have six documents that have requested adoption from the working group. My opinion is that we send out adoption calls for all of these and let the working group sort it out, but was told that is just crazy. Since Warren loves these poll things, we put another one together on all the documents in question. https://forms.gle/TVKeokYvnU55eq2x7 We'll run this poll for two weeks and end on the 9th of July. However, we have a chai9rs call on the 5th of July and I'm confident we'll have an obvious clear set of documents to begin adoption calls on. thanks tim ___ 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] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-avoid-fragmentation-07.txt
Hello, > Please review current verion. I have two data points to back some of your claims: "EDNS0 is now widely deployed" * We have some data to back this claim up -- but only from a ccTLD authoritative DNS vantage point. In short: 90% of the queries .nl sees have EDNS0. See data in [0].(if that helps) "and DNS (over UDP) is said to be the biggest user of IP fragmentation." It would be nice to have some ref for that (but I don't one). From the .nl servers, we see ~10k fragmented queries from 2.2B daily. Sec 3.2 in [1]. thanks, /giovane [0] https://stats.sidnlabs.nl/en/dns.html#edns%20buffer%20size#edns%20buffer%20size [1] https://www.sidnlabs.nl/downloads/4nEIOFHKbAStsWQhh2l4Lr/5e69fe630bc7290713eb9638c2229828/Fragmentation__truncation__and_timeouts_are_large_DNS_messages_falling_to_bits.pdf ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-catalog-zones-06.txt
Dear dnsop, This draft describes a mechanism for automatic provisioning of zones among authoritative name servers by way of distributing a catalog of those zones encoded in a regular DNS zone. The version's focus was finalizing for Working Group Last Call. We made sure that all MUSTs in the document have a companion description that tells what to do if that MUST condition is not met. Also the `group` property restrictions have been loosened to accommodate multiple sets of catalog consumers offering different sets of group properties. The authors consider this version to be complete to the best of our ability and we'd like to ask the working group to proceed with this document for Working Group Last Call. Op 07-07-2022 om 11:03 schreef internet-dra...@ietf.org: > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations WG of the IETF. > > Title : DNS Catalog Zones > Authors : Peter van Dijk > Libor Peltan > Ondrej Sury > Willem Toorop > Kees Monshouwer > Peter Thomassen > Aram Sargsyan > Filename: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-catalog-zones-06.txt > Pages : 20 > Date: 2022-07-07 > > Abstract: >This document describes a method for automatic DNS zone provisioning >among DNS primary and secondary nameservers by storing and >transferring the catalog of zones to be provisioned as one or more >regular DNS zones. > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-catalog-zones/ > > There is also an HTML version available at: > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-catalog-zones-06.html > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-catalog-zones-06 > > > Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts > > > ___ > 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] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-catalog-zones-06.txt
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations WG of the IETF. Title : DNS Catalog Zones Authors : Peter van Dijk Libor Peltan Ondrej Sury Willem Toorop Kees Monshouwer Peter Thomassen Aram Sargsyan Filename: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-catalog-zones-06.txt Pages : 20 Date: 2022-07-07 Abstract: This document describes a method for automatic DNS zone provisioning among DNS primary and secondary nameservers by storing and transferring the catalog of zones to be provisioned as one or more regular DNS zones. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-catalog-zones/ There is also an HTML version available at: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-catalog-zones-06.html A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-catalog-zones-06 Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
