[DNSOP] DNS long-lived queries

Dear colleagues, Over in dnssd, there's a draft on the agenda about long-lived queries. It's expired, but there are different options. For the mDNS case, it turned out that LLQ were perhaps not so important; but on the Internet, they're going to be. See the agenda at http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dns

Re: [DNSOP] Comment on draft-livingood-dnsop-negative-trust-anchors-01.txt

A couple of remarks below: On Nov 4, 2014, at 18:07, Brian Dickson wrote: > The good news is, for most cases, setting up a DLV-based "fix" can be done, > with only the DNSKEY(KSK). > I.e. modifying responses is not required AT ALL, and no new DNSKEYs or > signatures are needed. Recall that DL

Re: [DNSOP] [dns-privacy] Verisign patent disclosure

[[ I'm moving this thread from the dns-privacy mailing list because people there have not noticed that the draft is being discussed in dnsop ]] On Nov 5, 2014, at 8:04 AM, Ray Bellis wrote: > Would the 2007 implementation of a botnet with a built-in recursive resolver > that sends QNAME-minimis

Re: [DNSOP] Draft Reverse DNS in IPv6 for Internet Service Providers

At Sat, 01 Nov 2014 16:31:07 -0700, Paul Vixie wrote: > if there were an RFC (let's be charitable and assume it would have to be > an FYI due to lack of consensus) that gave reasons why PTR's would be > needed and reasons why the absence might be better (so, internet access > vs. internet service

Re: [DNSOP] Draft Reverse DNS in IPv6 for Internet Service Providers

On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 10:19:59AM -0800, 神明達哉 wrote: > > I guess > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-reverse-mapping-considerations-06 > personally think if we can agree on the content this time, such a > document will be very useful, but we should carefully learn from the > previous

[DNSOP] draft-livingood-dnsop-negative-trust-anch...@tools.ietf.org

I've read the draft. Overall it's pretty well written. I also personally support the idea of NTAs; although I see its side effect and the possibility of abuse, the draft seems to do its best to explain the implications and avoid abusing. Here are some specific comments on the 01 version: - Sect

Re: [DNSOP] Draft Reverse DNS in IPv6 for Internet Service Providers

> Andrew Sullivan > Wednesday, November 05, 2014 10:50 AM > On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 10:19:59AM -0800, 神明達哉 wrote: >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-reverse-mapping-considerations-06 > ... > ... I believed I had watered down the draft so thoroughly th

Re: [DNSOP] Draft Reverse DNS in IPv6 for Internet Service Providers

On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 12:50:42PM -0800, Paul Vixie wrote: > the lack of consensus means it can't be a proposed standard, not that it > can't be an FYI, BCP or similar, right? AFAIK we were planning only for informational. The chairs called WGLC, it ran, there was some ranting, then some months

Re: [DNSOP] Draft Reverse DNS in IPv6 for Internet Service Providers

Or we could stop debating whether we should maintain it and assume that if we give people tools that will allow it to be automatically maintained they will eventually deploy them. A lot of the issue is that the tools aren't out there yet. Document what a node should do to register itself in the

Re: [DNSOP] Draft Reverse DNS in IPv6 for Internet Service Providers

On Nov 5, 2014, at 3:59 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > AFAIK we were planning only for informational. The chairs called > WGLC, it ran, there was some ranting, then some months later one of > the chairs told me that they weren't sure what to do. To publish > something as a WG document, you still n

Re: [DNSOP] Draft Reverse DNS in IPv6 for Internet Service Providers

>Re-reading it today, it seems to me the text was altogether milquetoast. I agree. The points that Vixie notes are entirely true, and it's hard to imagine a good reason not to document them for the benefit of people who want to, you know, interoperate. R's, John

Re: [DNSOP] Draft Reverse DNS in IPv6 for Internet Service Providers

marka> Or we could stop debating whether we should maintain it and marka> assume that if we give people tools that will allow it to be marka> automatically maintained they will eventually deploy them. For providers with millions or tens of millions of end customers, any system that just lets any

Re: [DNSOP] Draft Reverse DNS in IPv6 for Internet Service Providers

marka> Or we could stop debating whether we should maintain it and marka> assume that if we give people tools that will allow it to be marka> automatically maintained they will eventually deploy them. [...] marka> Document what a node should do to register itself in the reverse marka> tree and to

Re: [DNSOP] Draft Reverse DNS in IPv6 for Internet Service Providers

On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 08:00:20AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote: > > Or we could stop debating whether we should maintain it and assume > that if we give people tools that will allow it to be automatically > maintained they will eventually deploy them. Yeah, that's worked so far! No reason it shoul

Re: [DNSOP] Draft Reverse DNS in IPv6 for Internet Service Providers

In message <20141105231214.gk31...@mx1.yitter.info>, Andrew Sullivan writes: > On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 08:00:20AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote: > > > > Or we could stop debating whether we should maintain it and assume > > that if we give people tools that will allow it to be automatically > > maint

Re: [DNSOP] Draft Reverse DNS in IPv6 for Internet Service Providers

In message <20141105215548.27d51a91...@fafnir.remote.dragon.net>, Paul Ebersman writes: > > marka> Or we could stop debating whether we should maintain it and > marka> assume that if we give people tools that will allow it to be > marka> automatically maintained they will eventually deploy them.

Re: [DNSOP] Draft Reverse DNS in IPv6 for Internet Service Providers

In message <20141105222034.5fe40a92...@fafnir.remote.dragon.net>, Paul Ebersman writes: > > marka> Or we could stop debating whether we should maintain it and > marka> assume that if we give people tools that will allow it to be > marka> automatically maintained they will eventually deploy them.

Re: [DNSOP] Draft Reverse DNS in IPv6 for Internet Service Providers

> > marka> Or we could stop debating whether we should maintain it and > > marka> assume that if we give people tools that will allow it to be > > marka> automatically maintained they will eventually deploy them. > > > > For providers with millions or tens of millions of end customers, any > > sys