Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-wkumari-dnsop-alt-tld-00.txt

2014-02-12 Thread David Conrad
On Feb 12, 2014, at 6:38 PM, George Michaelson wrote: > The previous draft (at least for some of the TLDs) was anchored in the > reality that changing the name already in use was not practical, e.g. there's > a sufficient deployed base that uses DNS-like names ending in ONION that > proposals t

Re: [DNSOP] Call for agenda items for London

2014-02-12 Thread Mark Andrews
In message , Paul Wouters wri tes: > On Thu, 13 Feb 2014, Mark Andrews wrote: > > > I also think we should establish requirements for updating parent > > zones. As a wg we have jumped in the deep end and gone straight > > to solutions without working out the actual requirements. > > We tried be

Re: [DNSOP] Call for agenda items for London

2014-02-12 Thread Paul Wouters
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014, Mark Andrews wrote: I also think we should establish requirements for updating parent zones. As a wg we have jumped in the deep end and gone straight to solutions without working out the actual requirements. We tried before and failed http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wou

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-wkumari-dnsop-alt-tld-00.txt

2014-02-12 Thread Mark Andrews
In message , George Michaelson writes: > > > > > On 2014-02-12, at 11:28, Marc Blanchet wrote: > > > > > - I like better that approach than the previous draft registering many > > tlds. > > > > The previous draft (at least for some of the TLDs) was anchored in the > > reality that changing the

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-wkumari-dnsop-alt-tld-00.txt

2014-02-12 Thread George Michaelson
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 4:24 AM, Joe Abley wrote: > > On 2014-02-12, at 11:28, Marc Blanchet wrote: > > > - I like better that approach than the previous draft registering many > tlds. > > The previous draft (at least for some of the TLDs) was anchored in the > reality that changing the name alr

Re: [DNSOP] Call for agenda items for London

2014-02-12 Thread Mark Andrews
I think there should be some discussion on how to deal with nameservers that fail to respond to legitimate queries. draft-andrews-dns-no-response-issue contains some thoughts on the matter. I also think we should establish requirements for updating parent zones. As a wg we have jumped in the dee

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-wkumari-dnsop-alt-tld-00.txt

2014-02-12 Thread joel jaeggli
On 2/12/14, 10:40 AM, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Feb 12, 2014, at 1:24 PM, Joe Abley wrote: >> I suspect that there would be fewer roadblocks involved in choosing >> an anchor ALT.ARPA than ALT, since ARPA is under the control of an >> IETF family member while the root is controlled by distant cousins.

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-wkumari-dnsop-alt-tld-00.txt

2014-02-12 Thread Ted Lemon
On Feb 12, 2014, at 1:24 PM, Joe Abley wrote: > I suspect that there would be fewer roadblocks involved in choosing an anchor > ALT.ARPA than ALT, since ARPA is under the control of an IETF family member > while the root is controlled by distant cousins. If I'm right that this > proposal is for

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-wkumari-dnsop-alt-tld-00.txt

2014-02-12 Thread Joe Abley
On 2014-02-12, at 11:28, Marc Blanchet wrote: > - I like better that approach than the previous draft registering many tlds. The previous draft (at least for some of the TLDs) was anchored in the reality that changing the name already in use was not practical, e.g. there's a sufficient deploy

Re: [DNSOP] Any suggestion on what I'm doing that is stupid here on NSEC3?

2014-02-12 Thread Nicholas Weaver
Thanks. Indeed I was stupid: wrong base32 encoding -- Nicholas Weaver it is a tale, told by an idiot, nwea...@icsi.berkeley.edufull of sound and fury, 510-666-2903 .signifying nothing PGP: http://www1.icsi.berkeley.edu/~nweaver/

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-wkumari-dnsop-alt-tld-00.txt

2014-02-12 Thread Marc Blanchet
- I like better that approach than the previous draft registering many tlds. - I would prefer an IANA registry under .alt with "expert" review policy. A namespace with possible collisions (past or future) have very low value to me. names are leaking in various contexts, so collisions would be ba

Re: [DNSOP] Any suggestion on what I'm doing that is stupid here on NSEC3?

2014-02-12 Thread Mukund Sivaraman
Hi Nicholas On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 07:35:47AM -0800, Nicholas Weaver wrote: > Looking at com, the NSEC3 for "com" is: > CK0POJMG874LJREF7EFN8430QVIT8BSM.com. 86400 IN NSEC3 1 1 0 - ... > > (Algorithm 1 -> SHA-1, flag = 1, iterations = 0, salt = None, fetched by "dig > +dnssec MX com @a.gtld-ser

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-wkumari-dnsop-alt-tld-00.txt

2014-02-12 Thread Stephane Bortzmeyer
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 12:58:38PM -0800, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote a message of 36 lines which said: > Title : The ALT Special Use Top Level Domain > Authors : Warren Kumari > Andrew Sullivan > Filename: draft-wkum

Re: [DNSOP] Any suggestion on what I'm doing that is stupid here on NSEC3?

2014-02-12 Thread Shumon Huque
It might be because NSEC3 uses base32 with extended hex alphabet. Looks like you're using plain base32. See http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4648#section-7 --Shumon. On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 07:35:47AM -0800, Nicholas Weaver wrote: > I'm trying to do my own implementation of NSEC3 as part of my dyna

[DNSOP] Any suggestion on what I'm doing that is stupid here on NSEC3?

2014-02-12 Thread Nicholas Weaver
I'm trying to do my own implementation of NSEC3 as part of my dynamic DNSSEC server (in order to do NSEC3 lies for NXDOMAIN, since you can't do such a lie with NSEC, NSEC lies only allow "0 answer noerror" which is unfortunately NOT the same) But I appear to be doing something stupid, and am no