Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: (The .onion Special-Use Domain Name) to Proposed Standard

David Conrad wants metrics for Tor. Unsurprisingly, they have them. Our evil spam filter is stopping me from sending a link, but go to: https metrics torproject org There you find: number of relays and bridges, advertised bandwidth, and connected users, as graphs over time, and much more. A

Re: [DNSOP] comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-03

All, On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 20:33:59 -0400 Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 03:43:12PM -0400, Casey Deccio wrote: > > I am also concerned about the apparent urgency to get the initial document > > out with points that admittedly remain contentious and/or where there isn't > > WG con

Re: [DNSOP] comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-03

> On 16 Jul 2015, at 03:15, Paul Hoffman > wrote: > > On 15 Jul 2015, at 17:33, Andrew Sullivan wrote: >> >> Just on this issue, and speaking only for myself (but as one of the >> people behind this document), my view is that this WG has historically >> been one of

Re: [DNSOP] comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-03

On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 11:15 AM, Shane Kerr wrote: > All, > > On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 20:33:59 -0400 > Andrew Sullivan wrote: > >> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 03:43:12PM -0400, Casey Deccio wrote: >> > I am also concerned about the apparent urgency to get the initial document >> > out with points that a

Re: [DNSOP] comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-03

On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 01:30:03PM +0200, Warren Kumari wrote: > We shouldn't be figuring out how useful a WG is by the number of > documents published, but I don't think DNSOP is still where documents > go to die... Agreed, but I also don't want to return to that bleak past where we could never g

Re: [DNSOP] comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-03

Hi, This is a good time to remind ourselves of how we got here. This draft came into the WG as an individual submission, with the authors seeking comment but not asking for it to be a WG work item. We eventually adopted it in the expectation that handling it as a WG draft would lead to higher

Re: [DNSOP] comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-03

On 16 Jul 2015, at 14:14, Suzanne Woolf wrote: > We have been through extensive review and a Working Group Last Call on this > draft. The next revision should go ahead to the IESG. +1 ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailma

Re: [DNSOP] comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-03

On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 01:30:03PM +0200, Warren Kumari wrote: >> We shouldn't be figuring out how useful a WG is by the number of >> documents published, but I don't think DNSOP is still where documents >> go to die... > > Agreed, but I a

Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: (The .onion Special-Use Domain Name) to Proposed Standard

On 16 July 2015 at 00:44, Joe Hildebrand wrote: > I don't see any mention of the CAB Forum stuff in the draft. Has anyone > done the analysis to see if CAB Forum members really will issue certs to > .onion addresses if we do this? Do they issue certs for .example or .local > today? Not only wil

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-client-subnet-02.txt

On 06Jul15, internet-dra...@ietf.org allegedly wrote: > > 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 Working Group > of the IETF. > > Title : Client Subnet in DNS Queries >

Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: (The .onion Special-Use Domain Name) to Proposed Standard

On 07/15/2015 02:45 PM, Francisco Obispo wrote: It doesn’t feel right to me rewarding bad behavior. I don't think it's fair to characterize this as "bad behavior." It is completely unsurprising behaviour, as I explained in some detail in a previous message: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/w

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-client-subnet-02.txt

Mark Delany writes: > I was under the (perhaps mistaken) impression that there was a plan to > rewrite this spec in light of actually implementation experiences. Is > this draft that rewrite? I ask as this seems to be more a clean-up of > the original draft. There is a plan to rewrite the spec, bu

Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: (The .onion Special-Use Domain Name) to Proposed Standard

On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 12:44 AM, Joe Hildebrand wrote: > On 15 Jul 2015, at 5:37, David Conrad wrote: > >> I try to be pragmatic. Given I do not believe that refusing to put ONION >> in the special names registry will stop the use of .ONION, the size of the >> installed base of TOR implementation

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis-02.txt

On 14/07/2015 11:31, Shane Kerr wrote: John, Looks pretty good, although I have a couple of comments. First, does it make sense to discuss blocking of network prefixes rather than IP addresses? This is mentioned a couple of times in the text, but blocking an IPv6 address is like throwing a pe

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-client-subnet-02.txt

On 16Jul15, Dave Lawrence allegedly wrote: > > I would think that if we're to proceed with this protocol then the > > white list requirement should be removed from the spec. > > I don't see language in the current draft that makes a whitelist a > requirement. The language I do see doesn't even us

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis-02.txt

On 16/07/2015 17:10, John Dickinson wrote: > > > On 14/07/2015 11:31, Shane Kerr wrote: >> >> Second, one possible issue for consideration is that it is already a >> problem for resolver operators that a single query can cause a *lot* of >> work for the resolver. This issue can be magnified wit

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-client-subnet-02.txt

Mark Delany writes: > True, there is no mandate, but all implementations that I'm aware of, > have implemented a white list. While the language is softer in -02, is > it necessary at all as it will only continue to encourage white list > behavior just as the previous language did. The reality is t

Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: (The .onion Special-Use Domain Name) to Proposed Standard

On 7/16/15, 9:57, "DNSOP on behalf of Tom Ritter" wrote: >On 16 July 2015 at 00:44, Joe Hildebrand wrote: >> I don't see any mention of the CAB Forum stuff in the draft. Has anyone >> done the analysis to see if CAB Forum members really will issue certs to >> .onion addresses if we do this? Do

[DNSOP] Seeking more WG Last Call review for draft-ietf-dnsop-cookies

Greetings. The WG Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-cookies was supposed to end today, but it got extremely little review during the Last Call. It would be helpful to all of us if more people can review the document, say what they do or don't like about it, and so on. --Paul Hoffman _

Re: [DNSOP] Seeking more WG Last Call review for draft-ietf-dnsop-cookies

If there is extension on last call, I would like to be volunteer reviewer the document. Best, Hosnieh > -Original Message- > From: DNSOP [mailto:dnsop-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Paul Hoffman > Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 9:53 PM > To: dnsop WG > Subject: [DNSOP] Seeking more WG Las

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis-02.txt

All, Replying to both John & Ray's mails at once here. Hopefully that is okay. On Thu, 16 Jul 2015 17:22:38 +0100 Ray Bellis wrote: > On 16/07/2015 17:10, John Dickinson wrote: > > > > > > On 14/07/2015 11:31, Shane Kerr wrote: > >> > >> Second, one possible issue for consideration is that it

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis-02.txt

On 16/07/2015 22:41, Shane Kerr wrote: I think it is worse than flooding with UDP. It allows "fire and forget" actions from clients: # we can comfortably fit 20 queries into a single 1280-byte packet for i = 1 to 20: packet.append(EXPENSIVE_QUERY) conn = socket.connect_tcp(

Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: (The .onion Special-Use Domain Name) to Proposed Standard

>> Well, even worse, what happens if decides to >> create a new dns-like protocol that uses .foo, does that mean that we should >> automatically block it? > > No. We can add it to the special-use domain name registry if the IETF has > consensus to do so, but there's nothing automatic about i

Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: (The .onion Special-Use Domain Name) to Proposed Standard

Ted, > To expand on this ever so slightly, the reason why things like this happen is > because the process for approving special-use allocations is perceived as too > heavyweight, so people don't bother to do it in anticipation of an experiment. To be honest, I doubt this. It assumes folks who

Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: (The .onion Special-Use Domain Name) to Proposed Standard

David Conrad wrote: >>> Well, even worse, what happens if decides to >>> create a new dns-like protocol that uses .foo, does that mean that we >>> should automatically block it? >> No. We can add it to the special-use domain name registry if the IETF has >> consensus to do so, but there's n