Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-muks-dnsop-dns-catalog-zones-04.txt

On 10 Mar 2018, at 17:26, Mukund Sivaraman wrote: this proposal. (in that sense, I'm curious: is there other DNS developer than ISC that is interested in implementing this proposal?) Yes. PowerDNS has wanted something like this for years but we never got around to writing it down. We are gra

Re: [DNSOP] Question about usage of ip6.arpa and in-addr.arpa

Roland Bracewell Shoemaker wrote: > > Obviously it’s entirely possible to do this as these child zones are > delegated to users and they _can_ put whatever they want in them. Does > this WG have strong opinions on whether we should/shouldn’t do this for > technical reasons or we just being a bit t

Re: [DNSOP] Question about usage of ip6.arpa and in-addr.arpa

On 12 Mar 2018, at 11:58, Roland Bracewell Shoemaker wrote: > After a number of discussions I’m interested in returning to the original > concept as it simplifies a number of use cases that this document is intended > to support but am still not sure whether or not this would be widely > cons

Re: [DNSOP] Question about usage of ip6.arpa and in-addr.arpa

On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 11:16 AM, Joe Abley wrote: > On 12 Mar 2018, at 11:58, Roland Bracewell Shoemaker < > rol...@letsencrypt.org> wrote: > > > After a number of discussions I’m interested in returning to the > original concept as it simplifies a number of use cases that this document > is int

Re: [DNSOP] Question about usage of ip6.arpa and in-addr.arpa

On Mar 13, 2018, at 11:16 AM, Joe Abley wrote: > > I think that if Tony can be d...@dotat.at , surely I > can be jab...@90.212.199.in-addr.arpa . > > A zone is a zone. ARPA is only special by convention, not by protocol. Yup. Thinki

Re: [DNSOP] Question about usage of ip6.arpa and in-addr.arpa

On 13 Mar 2018, at 11:22, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Mar 13, 2018, at 11:16 AM, Joe Abley > wrote: > >> I think that if Tony can be d...@dotat.at, surely I can be >> jab...@90.212.199.in-addr.arpa. >> >> A zone is a zone. ARPA is only special by convention, not by protocol. > > Yup. > > Thinkin

Re: [DNSOP] Question about usage of ip6.arpa and in-addr.arpa

On 13 Mar 2018, at 10:55, Tony Finch wrote: > From the operational point of view, you're going to bump into a lot of > annoying road blocks: undelegated reverse DNS, provisioning systems that > only allow for PTR, etc. Data point: Google's MXes evidently have no interest accepting mail from me

Re: [DNSOP] Question about usage of ip6.arpa and in-addr.arpa

On Mar 13, 2018, at 11:27 AM, Joe Abley wrote: > The canonical service that is difficult to use (or at least bootstrap) by > name rather than address is the DNS. If we imagine the intersection of the > DNS and TLS to be non-zero, there's your use case. This was Paul's point. > > DNS resolvers a

Re: [DNSOP] Question about usage of ip6.arpa and in-addr.arpa

On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 11:16:56AM -0400, Joe Abley wrote: > On 12 Mar 2018, at 11:58, Roland Bracewell Shoemaker > wrote: > > > After a number of discussions I’m interested in returning to the original > > concept as it simplifies a number of use cases that this document is > > intended to su

Re: [DNSOP] Question about usage of ip6.arpa and in-addr.arpa

On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 02:55:10PM +, Tony Finch wrote a message of 42 lines which said: > From the operational point of view, you're going to bump into a lot > of annoying road blocks: undelegated reverse DNS, provisioning > systems that only allow for PTR, etc. I fully agree. Playing w

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Re: meeting agenda?

Is there an agenda ready? Meeting is next week and I’d like to make travel arrangement depending on the agenda for 2nd session. Alain > On Mar 9, 2018, at 6:08 PM, 神明達哉 wrote: > > Thanks, I'm looking forward to seeing it:-) > >> On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 11:05 AM, Tim Wicinski wrote: >> >> Hi