Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-song-dns-wireformat-http-01.txt

This document is a good idea, but it has some faults that need to be fixed before it goes forwards. - In the Introduction, it says in essence that this is just using HTTP to tunnel DNS and is not of use to web browsers. This is wrong, I believe. JavaScript in browsers cannot create port 53 que

Re: [DNSOP] comments ( was Re: Call for Adoption: draft-crocker-dns-attrleaf)

On Mon, 29 Feb 2016, Dave Crocker wrote: Normally we try to leave "private use" ranges in registries for people to experiment on. It would be good to have that here as well, or else we won't be able to differentiate experimentation from standarization. I suggest reserving the double undersco

Re: [DNSOP] Fracturing the protocol - was Re: Updated cheese-shop.

In message <5d514d0f-cafd-405c-821c-c2cf3b7fa...@verisign.com>, "Wessels, Duane" writes: > > > On Feb 29, 2016, at 3:36 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: > > > > > > In message <20160229225356.56583.qm...@ary.lan>, "John Levine" writes: > >>> You could apply the technique to any signed zone where you are

Re: [DNSOP] Fracturing the protocol - was Re: Updated cheese-shop.

> On Feb 29, 2016, at 3:36 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: > > > In message <20160229225356.56583.qm...@ary.lan>, "John Levine" writes: >>> You could apply the technique to any signed zone where you are not >>> worried about not having instant visibility after adding a new name >>> to the zone. >> >>

Re: [DNSOP] Fracturing the protocol - was Re: Updated cheese-shop.

In message <20160229225356.56583.qm...@ary.lan>, "John Levine" writes: > >You could apply the technique to any signed zone where you are not > >worried about not having instant visibility after adding a new name > >to the zone. > > I don't understand this. If I ask for foo.example and get NXDOMA

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-crocker-dns-attrleaf

On 2/29/16 3:12 PM, Warren Kumari wrote: > On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 10:40 AM Tim Wicinski > wrote: > > There was some good discussion around this draft when it first appeared, > and the initial idea by the author was to run this through the Apps area > workin

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-crocker-dns-attrleaf

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 10:40 AM Tim Wicinski wrote: > There was some good discussion around this draft when it first appeared, > and the initial idea by the author was to run this through the Apps area > working group. The chairs feel it make more sense to run this through > DNSOP and we urged

Re: [DNSOP] SRV-related _underscore registry (was Re: Call for Adoption: draft-crocker-dns-attrleaf)

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 5:32 PM, Ray Bellis wrote: > > > On 29/02/2016 22:27, John R Levine wrote: > >> The existing port and service registry already has all of the _service >> names, and is updated as people invent new services. What's the benefit >> of duplicating it rather than just pointing

Re: [DNSOP] Fracturing the protocol - was Re: Updated cheese-shop.

>You could apply the technique to any signed zone where you are not >worried about not having instant visibility after adding a new name >to the zone. I don't understand this. If I ask for foo.example and get NXDOMAIN, and 10 ms later you add a record at foo.example, my negative answer is cached

Re: [DNSOP] comments ( was Re: Call for Adoption: draft-crocker-dns-attrleaf)

>> What are the requirements for entry into this registry. I would not want >> to see a rush of people registering vanity names for pet projects, >> taking away all the sensible one word entries. I see _mail is available :) > >Well, we know the concern about vanity use of DNS-related names is a >l

Re: [DNSOP] SRV-related _underscore registry (was Re: Call for Adoption: draft-crocker-dns-attrleaf)

On 29/02/2016 22:27, John R Levine wrote: > The existing port and service registry already has all of the _service > names, and is updated as people invent new services. What's the benefit > of duplicating it rather than just pointing to it? +1 [and this is pretty much the proposal I made to

Re: [DNSOP] SRV-related _underscore registry (was Re: Call for Adoption: draft-crocker-dns-attrleaf)

The current model in the _Underscore draft is to focus only on the highest level of _underscore naming, and treat any _underscore naming below that as local to the specification registering the highest-level name. So far so good. Given the existing variety of SRV use, I think it's worth having

[DNSOP] comments ( was Re: Call for Adoption: draft-crocker-dns-attrleaf)

On 2/29/2016 7:54 AM, Paul Wouters wrote: Some comments so far: thanks for pursuing this. responses: Normally we try to leave "private use" ranges in registries for people to experiment on. It would be good to have that here as well, or else we won't be able to differentiate experimentati

[DNSOP] SRV-related _underscore registry (was Re: Call for Adoption: draft-crocker-dns-attrleaf)

On 2/29/2016 10:07 AM, John Levine wrote: Service names are, as far as I can tell, used extensively in the DNS, but only as sub-names of protocol names for SRV, NAPRI, and URI records, e.g., "sip" in: _sip._udp IN SRV 0 5060 host42 The service names in the current draft should come out, a

Re: [DNSOP] Fracturing the protocol - was Re: Updated cheese-shop.

At Tue, 01 Mar 2016 08:24:05 +1100, Mark Andrews wrote: > > > >Please no. (Ed might disagree with me on this.) I think every document > > > >that talks about the DNS in the IETF is about the IANA-administered DNS > > > >except where loudly noted. > > > > > > I very much disagree coming from opera

Re: [DNSOP] Fracturing the protocol - was Re: Updated cheese-shop.

In message , =?UTF-8?B?56We5piO6YGU5ZOJ?= writes: > At Mon, 29 Feb 2016 16:54:49 +, > Edward Lewis wrote: > > > >Please no. (Ed might disagree with me on this.) I think every document > > >that talks about the DNS in the IETF is about the IANA-administered DNS > > >except where loudly noted

Re: [DNSOP] Updated cheese-shop.

At Mon, 29 Feb 2016 16:54:28 +, Warren Kumari wrote: > > - Section 1 > > > >The title of this draft comes from a famous Monty Python skit - "The > >Cheese Shop". There are some useful parallels between this problem > >and the skit - watching the skit is encouraged to understand t

Re: [DNSOP] Fracturing the protocol - was Re: Updated cheese-shop.

At Mon, 29 Feb 2016 16:54:49 +, Edward Lewis wrote: > >Please no. (Ed might disagree with me on this.) I think every document > >that talks about the DNS in the IETF is about the IANA-administered DNS > >except where loudly noted. > > I very much disagree coming from operating DNS on networks

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-crocker-dns-attrleaf

>This starts a Call for Adoption for "DNS Scoped Data Through >'_Underscore' Attribute Leaves" > >The draft is available here: >https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-crocker-dns-attrleaf/ >Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for adoption >by DNSOP, and comments to the li

Re: [DNSOP] Fracturing the protocol - was Re: Updated cheese-shop.

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 11:27 AM Paul Hoffman wrote: > On 29 Feb 2016, at 8:13, Warren Kumari wrote: > > > I *think* that the document / proposal implicitly handles this case > > already. > > Please make the "if the root zone isn't signed with NSEC then fall back" > explicit. Implicit to you is c

Re: [DNSOP] Updated cheese-shop.

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 7:05 PM 神明達哉 wrote: > At Thu, 25 Feb 2016 04:58:11 +, > Warren Kumari wrote: > > > We have recently updated "Believing NSEC records in the DNS root" ( > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wkumari-dnsop-cheese-shop-01). > > > > This incorporates some comments, but als

Re: [DNSOP] Fracturing the protocol - was Re: Updated cheese-shop.

On 2/29/16, 11:26, "Paul Hoffman" wrote: >Please no. (Ed might disagree with me on this.) I think every document >that talks about the DNS in the IETF is about the IANA-administered DNS >except where loudly noted. I very much disagree coming from operating DNS on networks other than the global p

Re: [DNSOP] Fracturing the protocol - was Re: Updated cheese-shop.

On 29 Feb 2016, at 8:13, Warren Kumari wrote: I *think* that the document / proposal implicitly handles this case already. Please make the "if the root zone isn't signed with NSEC then fall back" explicit. Implicit to you is confusing to others. If the root (of whatever tree / name resolu

Re: [DNSOP] Fracturing the protocol - was Re: Updated cheese-shop.

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 9:12 AM Shane Kerr wrote: > Ed, > > At 2016-02-29 12:51:16 + > Edward Lewis wrote: > > > On 2/25/16, 17:58, "DNSOP on behalf of Warren Kumari" > > wrote: > > > > >We have recently updated "Believing NSEC records in the DNS root" > > >(https://tools.ietf.org/html/draf

Re: [DNSOP] Fracturing the protocol - was Re: Updated cheese-shop.

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 10:04 AM Shane Kerr wrote: > Ed, > > At 2016-02-29 14:34:39 + > Edward Lewis wrote: > > I don't think I was clear - this is only about the DNS protocol. This > > document proposes that the DNS protocol behave differently depending on > > the data being carried (QNAME

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-crocker-dns-attrleaf

On Mon, 29 Feb 2016, Tim Wicinski wrote: There was some good discussion around this draft when it first appeared, and the initial idea by the author was to run this through the Apps area working group. The chairs feel it make more sense to run this through DNSOP and we urged the author to all

Re: [DNSOP] Requesting time slots at IETF95 in B.A.

I would like 15-20 (or whatever sounds reasonable to you) for Cheese-shop, on the "regular" DNSOP slot, please. I had thought that we were not really doing 6761 work until $something? W On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 10:47 AM Tim Wicinski wrote: > > Hi > > We're beginning our call for time slots at I

Re: [DNSOP] Fracturing the protocol - was Re: Updated cheese-shop.

On 29 Feb 2016, at 6:12, Shane Kerr wrote: Can't a couple sentences address this concern? "If the root zone is not DNSSEC signed with NSEC records then the Cheese Shop is closed and this document does not apply. Resolvers MUST continue to work in such an environment." Shane's proposal would b

[DNSOP] Requesting time slots at IETF95 in B.A.

Hi We're beginning our call for time slots at IETF95. We were hoping to wait until the scheduling has been done, as we have asked for two time slots: a 2 Hour slot for DNSOP work, and a 1 Hour slot for DNSOP work that is related to RFC6761. In reaching out to the chairs, you should mentio

Re: [DNSOP] Fracturing the protocol - was Re: Updated cheese-shop.

On 2/29/16, 10:03, "Shane Kerr" wrote: >Ah. So you don't like identifying magic zones (other than in-addr.arpa, >ip6.arpa, .example, .local, ...). Fair enough. What's magic about any of them? In the protocol they all are processed the same. There is no "reverse DNS" protocol, what's confusing

[DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-crocker-dns-attrleaf

There was some good discussion around this draft when it first appeared, and the initial idea by the author was to run this through the Apps area working group. The chairs feel it make more sense to run this through DNSOP and we urged the author to allow us the chance to give the working group

Re: [DNSOP] Fracturing the protocol - was Re: Updated cheese-shop.

Ed, At 2016-02-29 14:34:39 + Edward Lewis wrote: > I don't think I was clear - this is only about the DNS protocol. This > document proposes that the DNS protocol behave differently depending on > the data being carried (QNAME) in it's own messages. [...] > This isn't about processing diff

Re: [DNSOP] Fracturing the protocol - was Re: Updated cheese-shop.

On 2/29/16, 9:12, "DNSOP on behalf of Shane Kerr" wrote: >Interesting concern, although I don't see how it can be otherwise. We >don't know what the properties of future protocols will be, so I don't >know how we can specify the behavior of resolvers using such protocols >would be. I don't think

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-song-dns-wireformat-http-01.txt

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 3:13 AM, Song Linjian (Davey) wrote: > Hi Bob , > > I update the draft to 01 version to respond to your suggestion and > question. > > > A new version of I-D, draft-song-dns-wireformat-http-01.txt > has been successfully submitted by Linjian Song and posted to the > IETF r

Re: [DNSOP] Fracturing the protocol - was Re: Updated cheese-shop.

Ed, At 2016-02-29 12:51:16 + Edward Lewis wrote: > On 2/25/16, 17:58, "DNSOP on behalf of Warren Kumari" > wrote: > > >We have recently updated "Believing NSEC records in the DNS root" > >(https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wkumari-dnsop-cheese-shop-01). > > My objection to this document

Re: [DNSOP] SAV? was Re: Updated cheese-shop: cost/benefit analysis, please?

Edward Lewis wrote: > > On 2/26/16, 18:21, "DNSOP on behalf of Paul Vixie" on behalf of p...@redbarn.org> wrote: > > >sadly, this same engineering economic argument applies to SAV. > > What's SAV? Source address verification. Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finchhttp://dotat.at/ Biscay, Southeast Fit

[DNSOP] SAV? was Re: Updated cheese-shop: cost/benefit analysis, please?

On 2/26/16, 18:21, "DNSOP on behalf of Paul Vixie" wrote: >sadly, this same engineering economic argument applies to SAV. What's SAV? Heavy use of undefined terms, cultural references and jargon make it harder for new people to join in discussions. (As one other participant noted, I too am un

[DNSOP] Fracturing the protocol - was Re: Updated cheese-shop.

On 2/25/16, 17:58, "DNSOP on behalf of Warren Kumari" wrote: >We have recently updated "Believing NSEC records in the DNS root" >(https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wkumari-dnsop-cheese-shop-01). My objection to this document is based on the draft's proposal to specify a change to the protocol ba

[DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-song-dns-wireformat-http-01.txt

Hi Bob , I update the draft to 01 version to respond to your suggestion and question. A new version of I-D, draft-song-dns-wireformat-http-01.txt has been successfully submitted by Linjian Song and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-song-dns-wireformat-http Revision: 01