Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

> On Mar 23, 2017, at 5:54 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > > On Mar 23, 2017, at 5:47 PM, Ralph Droms wrote: >> As Matt Larson just pointed out, "different protocol" may turn into a >> distraction. .homenet is asking for an entry in the special-use domain name >> registry and a specific kind of entry

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

Hi Barry, There are complex factors to optimize the datacenter connection of CDN. I know every CDN need "Everything is in IP, RIPs, FIBs, AS Patch, system load, content availability, etc." to measure better path calculations. I understand that "Knowing that it is in Palo Alto California" is not so

Re: [DNSOP] Homenet implementation plans by vendors? Re: .arpa

On 23/03/2017 16:08, George Michaelson wrote: > then I un-take my rant. apologies for ranting. > > but to the sw authors of OpenWRT grr. parameterized? runtime configurable? The option value is run time configurable, because the home owner might have their own domain that they wish to use.

Re: [DNSOP] Homenet implementation plans by vendors? Re: .arpa

then I un-take my rant. apologies for ranting. but to the sw authors of OpenWRT grr. parameterized? runtime configurable? On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 8:26 AM, Ray Bellis wrote: > > > On 23/03/2017 15:20, George Michaelson wrote: >> here we go again "because its in running code, its too late to

Re: [DNSOP] Homenet implementation plans by vendors? Re: .arpa

On 23/03/2017 15:20, George Michaelson wrote: > here we go again "because its in running code, its too late to change > so my pre-emptive decision to code to it, trumps any process you ask > we invoke now" > > thats called squatting: its what other people do. and I repudiate it. > > you should

Re: [DNSOP] Homenet implementation plans by vendors? Re: .arpa

here we go again "because its in running code, its too late to change so my pre-emptive decision to code to it, trumps any process you ask we invoke now" thats called squatting: its what other people do. and I repudiate it. you should have coded to example.com or a nonce. -G On Fri, Mar 24, 201

Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

On Mar 23, 2017, at 5:47 PM, Ralph Droms wrote: > As Matt Larson just pointed out, "different protocol" may turn into a > distraction. .homenet is asking for an entry in the special-use domain name > registry and a specific kind of entry in the DNS root zone. I take those > characteristics to

Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

> On Mar 23, 2017, at 2:30 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > > On Mar 23, 2017, at 2:11 PM, Ralph Droms wrote: >> No snark intended, but if "the protocol" were really just DNS, we wouldn't >> be having this discussion. Rather, it is the DNS wire protocol using a >> local resolution context rather than

Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

> On Mar 23, 2017, at 2:30 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > > On Mar 23, 2017, at 2:11 PM, Ralph Droms > wrote: >> No snark intended, but if "the protocol" were really just DNS, we wouldn't >> be having this discussion. Rather, it is the DNS wire protocol using a >> local

Re: [DNSOP] Homenet implementation plans by vendors? Re: .arpa

On 23/03/2017 14:01, Ted Lemon wrote: > My expectation is that it will start out in open source distros, and > in a few high end boxes, and trickle down. AIUI, bits of the Homenet stack (including HNCP) are already available in OpenWRT. Ray ___ DNSOP

Re: [DNSOP] Homenet implementation plans by vendors? Re: .arpa

On Mar 23, 2017, at 4:11 PM, Dan York wrote: > I ask in part because if the IETF did decide to go down the route of > interacting with ICANN to make special exceptions in the root zone, these are > exactly the kind of questions I could see people at ICANN asking. It would > also speak to the t

[DNSOP] Homenet implementation plans by vendors? Re: .arpa

Ted or Ray or others more involved with Homenet, (I have not been) I've not fully read all of the 80+ messages in this thread over the past couple of days, but Paul's comment below (as well as Ralph Droms' comment the other day about code) made me wonder: - Do we have any sense of whether peopl

Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

On 23 March 2017 at 13:50, Ray Bellis wrote: > > > Hence w.r.t Matt Pounsett's argument that the -redact document go first > and then the assignment of ".homenet" be done later, the Homenet WG has > argued *very* strongly that this is not acceptable because it leaves > HNCP in an indeterminate st

Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

On Mar 23, 2017, at 2:11 PM, Ralph Droms wrote: > No snark intended, but if "the protocol" were really just DNS, we wouldn't be > having this discussion. Rather, it is the DNS wire protocol using a local > resolution context rather than the root zone. In any event, yes, the locally > server h

Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

On Thu, 23 Mar 2017, Ray Bellis wrote: On 23/03/2017 11:03, Paul Wouters wrote: The phrase "more important" is pretty meaningless. And as was indicated, it is all based on the levels of DNSSEC deployment on stubs, which could change dramatically if one phone vender would suddently enable valid

Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

> On Mar 23, 2017, at 1:50 PM, Ray Bellis wrote: > > > > On 23/03/2017 10:34, Suzanne Woolf wrote: > >> I’m trying to make sure I understand what the special use reservation >> accomplishes in the absence of the insecure delegation. >> >> If I read your comment correctly, I can infer two thi

Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

On 23/03/2017 11:03, Paul Wouters wrote: > The phrase "more important" is pretty meaningless. And as was indicated, > it is all based on the levels of DNSSEC deployment on stubs, which could > change dramatically if one phone vender would suddently enable > validation or default to DNS-over-TLS

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

> On Mar 21, 2017, at 11:38 PM, Lanlan Pan wrote: > > However, if you know about the geolocation , you can > make a better response, most of time, is the best response too. Your statement is not matching the operational realities I live in. I understand how mapping is done in my current envi

Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

On Thu, 23 Mar 2017, Suzanne Woolf wrote: 1. The protocol is sufficiently functional for deployment without working capability for DNSSEC validation. No, what was said was there wasn't very much dnssec validating stubs out there to cause visible problems at this moment. 2. Having a single-l

Re: [DNSOP] Validating stubs? Was: Re: WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

In message , Brian Dickson writes: > > I was thinking about the DNSSEC validation by stubs, with respect to the > homenet discussion. > > And, I was wondering about various trust anchor options (other than ICANN's > current root trust anchor). > > It occurred to me, that any non-ICANN trust an

Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

On 23/03/2017 10:34, Suzanne Woolf wrote: > I’m trying to make sure I understand what the special use reservation > accomplishes in the absence of the insecure delegation. > > If I read your comment correctly, I can infer two things about the > protocol, whether the insecure delegation is delay

Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

On Mar 23, 2017, at 1:43 PM, Suzanne Woolf wrote: > I meant the question to cover both cases. The second question may well be > more important in the “never available” case, but that’s part of what I’m > trying to understand. I think in the "never available" case we would obsolete the allocatio

Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

> On Mar 23, 2017, at 1:40 PM, Ralph Droms wrote: > > >> On Mar 23, 2017, at 1:34 PM, Suzanne Woolf wrote: >> >> Hi Ray, >> >>> On Mar 23, 2017, at 1:24 PM, Ray Bellis wrote: >>> >>> I consider them to be _independent_. The special use reservation >>> mustn't be held up waiting for the re

Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

> On Mar 23, 2017, at 1:34 PM, Suzanne Woolf wrote: > > Hi Ray, > >> On Mar 23, 2017, at 1:24 PM, Ray Bellis wrote: >> >> I consider them to be _independent_. The special use reservation >> mustn't be held up waiting for the requested insecure delegation. > > I’m trying to make sure I under

Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

Hi Ray, > On Mar 23, 2017, at 1:24 PM, Ray Bellis wrote: > > I consider them to be _independent_. The special use reservation > mustn't be held up waiting for the requested insecure delegation. I’m trying to make sure I understand what the special use reservation accomplishes in the absence o

Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

On 23/03/2017 09:32, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > As a comment on the document, then (that is what we're discussing, > right?), I'd note that the plan for allocation of a special-use name > contained in the draft does not state clearly (at least in my reading) > whether it is conditional on receivin

Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

Hi, On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 08:34:14AM -0400, Ted Lemon wrote: > > The working group is aware of the "wait many years" part of this approach, > and is willing to try and see. If the working group sees no progress over > the course of the next few years, we may shift to the latter approach. >

Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

On Mar 23, 2017, at 10:00 AM, John R Levine wrote: > Just out of curiosity, is there anyone in the homenet WG who regularly > engages with ICANN, through AC's or SO's or the like? Possibly one of the two working group chairs. But how is this relevant? What's going on here is that we've stumbl

[DNSOP] draft-ietf-homenet-dot review limits Re: .arpa

Hi all, and not picking on John…. I think this subthread on process and policy has gone as far as we reasonably can in a DNSOP review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot. We’ve established that different constraints and expectations apply to policy for different portions of the namespace, and that the HO

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

On 19 March 2017 at 21:44, Suzanne Woolf wrote: > This document is the product of the homenet WG, which has asked the IESG > to approve it for publication, so our comments are strictly advisory to the > IESG. There was some discussion of the draft on this list shortly after it > appeared, in Nove

Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

The working group is aware of the "wait many years" part of this approach, and is willing to try and see. If the working group sees no progress over the course of the next few years, we may shift to the latter approach. Just out of curiosity, is there anyone in the homenet WG who regularly e

Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

On Mar 23, 2017, at 12:27 AM, John Levine wrote: > - waits many, many years while ICANN does what ICANN does about anything new > > At this point I see the only plausible options as choose .homenet and > require all validating resolvers to special-case it, or choose > .homenet.arpa and put whate

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

Hi Paul, Thanks for your comments and detail expatiation, :-) *Why I think ECS is actually based on the map of " client subnet -> geolocation (country, province, isp) " ? * Of course, we all read RFC 7871, they said "Topologically Close" , not "Geographically close". Everyone know that geolocat