This version addresses all the comments that the chair's determined needed
addressing.
Olafur
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 9:56 PM, 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 of the IET
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 of the IETF.
Title : Providing Minimal-Sized Responses to DNS Queries that
have QTYPE=ANY
Authors : Joe Abley
> On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> In message , Ted Lemon writes:
> >
> > On Feb 8, 2017, at 3:30 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > > And if the service has the same privacy issues as .onion has?
> > >
> > > So we leak names until every recursive server in the world is
> > > vali
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> In message , Ted Lemon
> writes:
> >
> > On Feb 8, 2017, at 3:30 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > > And if the service has the same privacy issues as .onion has?
> > >
> > > So we leak names until every recursive server in the world is
> > > val
In message , Ted Lemon writes:
>
> On Feb 8, 2017, at 3:30 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > And if the service has the same privacy issues as .onion has?
> >
> > So we leak names until every recursive server in the world is
> > validating (what % is that today?) and supports agressive negative
> > cac
[[ Hopefully the WG can focus on multiple topics at once; this one has
an effect on the upcoming interim WG meeting. ]]
[[ We got a few responses to our earlier message about the new terms in
draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-04, but would certainly like to hear
more. From our earlier message:
On Feb 8, 2017, at 3:30 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> And if the service has the same privacy issues as .onion has?
>
> So we leak names until every recursive server in the world is
> validating (what % is that today?) and supports agressive negative
> caching (still a I-D).
I feel like I am arguing
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> In message , Ted Lemon
> writes:
> >
> > On Feb 8, 2017, at 1:02 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > > Which assumes agggressive negative caching. I'm going to make a
> > > realistic assumption that it will take 10+ years for there to be
> > > m
In message <00767076-fa43-42c0-a4af-39f4e1087...@fugue.com>, Ted Lemon writes:
> charset=us-ascii
>
> On Feb 8, 2017, at 2:42 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > 4. Caching DNS servers SHOULD recognize these names as special and
> > SHOULD NOT, by default, attempt to look up NS records fo
On Feb 8, 2017, at 2:42 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> 4. Caching DNS servers SHOULD recognize these names as special and
> SHOULD NOT, by default, attempt to look up NS records for them,
> or otherwise query authoritative DNS servers in an attempt to
> resolve these names. Instea
In message , Ted Lemon writes:
>
> On Feb 8, 2017, at 1:02 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > Which assumes agggressive negative caching. I'm going to make a
> > realistic assumption that it will take 10+ years for there to be
> > meaningful (>50%) deployment of aggressive negative caching.
>
> First
to come along (.homenet?) will likely be different from any of the
existing ones, this strikes me as akin to asking for a pony.
Some people in the discussion wanted ICANN to do something. This is
akin to asking for an unicorn (at least, ponies do exist).
I wouldn't disagree.
If you just want
On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 09:53:07AM -0500,
Ted Lemon wrote
a message of 37 lines which said:
> > Why are they different, by the way?
>
> There is more than one way to handle a special-use name.
Yes, but "serve it locally" is just one way, and it has its own
registry, which is not the case wit
On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 03:11:01PM -,
John Levine wrote
a message of 16 lines which said:
> Considering the vastly different ways that software handles .local
> and .onion and example.com and 10.in-addr.arpa, and that next thing
> to come along (.homenet?) will likely be different from any
Hi Stephane,
Thanks for the review, it’s helpful.
I’ll leave it to the editors to take the first pass at integrating your
comments, but:
> On Feb 8, 2017, at 4:15 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>
> Biggest problem with the draft: it fails to mention the only real
> technical problem with RFC
In article <20170208091536.vqwftrhpole33...@nic.fr> you write:
>Biggest problem with the draft: it fails to mention the only real
>technical problem with RFC 6761, the lack of a formal language for the
>registry, thus preventing the programmers of resolving software to
>compile automatically the co
On Feb 8, 2017, at 1:02 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> Which assumes agggressive negative caching. I'm going to make a
> realistic assumption that it will take 10+ years for there to be
> meaningful (>50%) deployment of aggressive negative caching.
First of all, this probably isn't true, since most
On Feb 8, 2017, at 3:43 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> Why are they different, by the way?
There is more than one way to handle a special-use name. That's why we're
debating which way to handle .alt, after all! :)
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ie
I think you have read the draft as if it were about "the problems with
special-use names." This is not the intended reading. It is intended to be
read as "the set of problems that motivated RFC 6761, plus the set of problems
that would motivate an update to RFC 6761."
Solutions are out of s
On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 11:26:28AM +,
Tony Finch wrote
a message of 23 lines which said:
> For RFC 8020 to suppress these .alt leaked queries properly, you
> also need qname minimization.
Yes, but anyone uses RFC 7816, anyway :-)
___
DNSOP mail
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> Mark Andrews wrote:
> > Ted Lemon wrote:
> > >
> > > If it has proof of non-existence for .alt cached, it doesn't need
> > > to ask any further questions to deny the existence of any
> > > subdomain of .alt.
> >
> > Which assumes agggressive negative caching.
>
> If
All,
I just submitted -04 in response to comments received.
As usual, all feedback is welcome.
Thanks again,
John
--
** I-D "BULK DNS Resource Records" Mini-FAQ 01-31-17 **
--
Q)
On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 06:04:05PM -0500,
Suzanne Woolf wrote
a message of 82 lines which said:
> This message opens a Working Group Last Call for:
>
> "Special-Use Names Problem Statement"
I've read draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-02
I'm not convinced that there really is a "problem" with specia
On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 04:55:19PM +,
Tony Finch wrote
a message of 36 lines which said:
> > Yes, that's right, with the caveat that all existing locally
> > served zones are in the reverse space - there's no forward zones
> > registered (yet).
>
> There are several :-) RFC 6761 specifies
On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 06:12:31PM +,
Ray Bellis wrote
a message of 28 lines which said:
> The "locally served zones" and "special use domains" registries are
> different.
Why are they different, by the way? I really do not understand
that. The "locally served zones" registry should be a
On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 05:02:08PM +1100,
Mark Andrews wrote
a message of 30 lines which said:
> > If it has proof of non-existence for .alt cached, it doesn't need
> > to ask any further questions to deny the existence of any
> > subdomain of .alt.
>
> Which assumes agggressive negative cach
26 matches
Mail list logo
