Re: [DNSOP] [dns-privacy] FW: New Version Notification for draft-pan-dnsop-edns-isp-location-00

> On Mar 21, 2017, at 21:30 , Lanlan Pan wrote: > > See this example of ECS : Which CDNs support edns-client-subnet?  > , they > map the ECS client subnet into the geolocation (what EIL give), and then

Re: [DNSOP] [dns-privacy] FW: New Version Notification for draft-pan-dnsop-edns-isp-location-00

Hi Ask， Ask Bjørn Hansen 于2017年3月21日周二 下午4:11写道： > > > On Mar 20, 2017, at 0:49, Lanlan Pan wrote: > > > > Everyone has known that physical location and the topology of content > delivery DO NOT MATCH. > > As last mail reply to Warren, my proposal can

Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-bellis-dnsop-xpf-01.txt

On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 4:43 AM, Ray Bellis wrote: > I've submitted a -01 revision to address most of the feedback received > so far. I have some minor comments on this version. - Section 3.1 IP Version: The IP protocol version number used by the client, as defined in the

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

Hi, > On 21 Mar 2017, at 18:36, Ralph Droms wrote: > > >> On Mar 21, 2017, at 2:34 PM, Tim Chown wrote: >> >>> On 21 Mar 2017, at 17:30, Suzanne Woolf wrote: >>> >>> Jim, >>> >>> In the interests of preserving a

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal-02.txt

Hi, I have one comment for this draft. In Section 3.3 Message Format, I would prefer that if a Session Signaling message is received where any of the section count fields are not zero, the receiver MUST respond with an error code, e.g. FORMERR, but MUST NOT terminate the connection. My reason

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

> On Mar 21, 2017, at 2:34 PM, Tim Chown wrote: > >> On 21 Mar 2017, at 17:30, Suzanne Woolf wrote: >> >> Jim, >> >> In the interests of preserving a distinction here that I believe is >> important: >> >>> On Mar 21, 2017, at 10:01 AM, Jim

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

On 21/03/2017 10:30, Suzanne Woolf wrote: > Is there any evidence connecting the use of the string “.home” in > queries to the DNS with any particular protocol, type of equipment, > network configuration, or software? It's known to be the default domain configured in 5+ million BT home gateway

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

> On 21 Mar 2017, at 17:30, Suzanne Woolf wrote: > > Jim, > > In the interests of preserving a distinction here that I believe is > important: > >> On Mar 21, 2017, at 10:01 AM, Jim Reid wrote: >> >> >>> On 21 Mar 2017, at 13:54, Paul Wouters

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

Jim, In the interests of preserving a distinction here that I believe is important: > On Mar 21, 2017, at 10:01 AM, Jim Reid wrote: > > >> On 21 Mar 2017, at 13:54, Paul Wouters wrote: >> >> Suggesting we postpone .homenet while figuring out a new

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

On Mar 21, 2017, at 11:11 AM, Jim Reid wrote: > That doesn't mean their decision was the right one. In retrospect, the > stand-off in this WG and between the IETF and ICANN about "special" TLDs (for > some definition of special) suggests they made a poor choice. What

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

> On 21 Mar 2017, at 15:00, Mark Andrews wrote: > > The homenet working group decided that the root was a more appropriae place > than > arpa. That doesn't mean their decision was the right one. In retrospect, the stand-off in this WG and between the IETF and ICANN about

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

What is the point of having a MoU that names may need to be assigned in the root namespace if there cannot be a entry added to the root namespace if there is a technical need to it? .onion names were never supposed to be looked up using the DNS protocol so there is no need to the entries to

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

Jim Reid writes: > > > > On 21 Mar 2017, at 14:09, Paul Wouters wrote: > > > > Can we tell from the queries or a timeline of query quantity if this > > is generic .home pollution that predates the homenet protocol suite, > > or actually the result the homenet protocol

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

Paul, I’d like to make sure I understand your comment, as I’m not completely sure it addresses mine. As I read your response, you’re willing to forgo a root zone entry, and the DNSSEC behavior the WG has reached consensus it wants, in order to have an entry in the special use name registry

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

> On 21 Mar 2017, at 14:09, Paul Wouters wrote: > > Can we tell from the queries or a timeline of query quantity if this > is generic .home pollution that predates the homenet protocol suite, > or actually the result the homenet protocol suite being deployed? What's this "we"?

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

> On Mar 21, 2017, at 10:12 AM, Paul Wouters wrote: > >> On Tue, 21 Mar 2017, Ralph Droms wrote: >> >> If draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03 specified homenet.arpa, the IETF could assign >> as many different names as wanted for different scoping scenarios, without >> interacting with

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

On Tue, 21 Mar 2017, Ralph Droms wrote: If draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03 specified homenet.arpa, the IETF could assign as many different names as wanted for different scoping scenarios, without interacting with ICANN for each assignment. arpa is a loaded name for some non-US citizens.

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

On Tue, 21 Mar 2017, Jim Reid wrote: On 21 Mar 2017, at 13:54, Paul Wouters wrote: Suggesting we postpone .homenet while figuring out a new IETF/ICANN process, something that can take years, would basically doom this rename and install .home as the defacto standard. At the

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

> On Mar 21, 2017, at 10:05 AM, Philip Homburg > wrote: > >> This .home / .homenet issue has already been going on for a very >> long time. The longer we wait with resolving this issue, the worse >> the deployment situation will be of software mixing .home vs >>>

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

> This .home / .homenet issue has already been going on for a very > long time. The longer we wait with resolving this issue, the worse > the deployment situation will be of software mixing .home vs > >homenet. Do we really expect homenet to be only ever used in a 'home'? It seems to me that

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

> On 21 Mar 2017, at 13:54, Paul Wouters wrote: > > Suggesting we postpone .homenet while figuring out a new IETF/ICANN > process, something that can take years, would basically doom this rename > and install .home as the defacto standard. At the risk of pouring petrol on the

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

> On Mar 21, 2017, at 12:22 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > > Hi, > > On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 01:14:25PM -0400, Ralph Droms wrote: > >> Russ - In my opinion, the special-use domain registry is not being >> used to put the name in the root zone. The observation is that

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

On Tue, 21 Mar 2017, Suzanne Woolf wrote: [also speaking as individual only] I see no justification in draft-ietf-homenet-dot for a single-label name, except an implicit suggestion in Sec. 2 para. 2 that the specific string was chosen to be memorable in cases where homenet names are exposed

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

Ted - has the operation of .homenet, as described in draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03, been demonstrated? - Ralph ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

> FWIW, when adding DANE support to Postfix, it was plainly obvious > that DNSSEC validation belongs in the local resolver, and Postfix > just needs to trust its "AD" bit. The only thing missing from the > traditional libresolv API is some way for the application to specify > the resolver address

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

Hi, No hats, except DNS/names geek who has spent a lot of time talking with policy people about why and how the root zone is (and isn’t) special. > On Mar 20, 2017, at 3:38 PM, Russ Housley wrote: > > Ted: > >> There are other processes for adding names to the root

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-03.txt

Petr, thanks for your review and feedback... > On Mar 15, 2017, at 6:52 AM, Petr Špaček wrote: > > On 14.3.2017 12:28, Ralph Droms wrote: >> draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-03 includes revised text to address issues raised >> during the WG last call and other editorial

Re: [DNSOP] [dns-privacy] FW: New Version Notification for draft-pan-dnsop-edns-isp-location-00

> On Mar 20, 2017, at 0:49, Lanlan Pan wrote: > > Everyone has known that physical location and the topology of content > delivery DO NOT MATCH. > As last mail reply to Warren, my proposal can offer the SAME critical > information for authoritative server to make tailored

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

In message