Re: [DNSOP] [v6ops] [IANA #989438] ipv4only.arpa's delegation should be insecure.

> On 13 Jun 2018, at 12:28 pm, David Schinazi wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > Stuart and I have a draft that attempts to address these issues, please let > us know if you think it does or doesn't. > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cheshire-sudn-ipv4only-dot-arpa > > Thanks, > David Schinazi

Re: [DNSOP] [v6ops] [IANA #989438] ipv4only.arpa's delegation should be insecure.

LGTM. It sounds like Mark is arguing that RFC6761 also needs updated. Possibly this document could do that, but it would need to be reframed a bit. On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 7:28 PM, David Schinazi wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Stuart and I have a draft that attempts to address these issues, please

Re: [DNSOP] [v6ops] [IANA #989438] ipv4only.arpa's delegation should be insecure.

Hi everyone, Stuart and I have a draft that attempts to address these issues, please let us know if you think it does or doesn't. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cheshire-sudn-ipv4only-dot-arpa Thanks, David Schinazi > On

[DNSOP] Fwd: [IANA #989438] ipv4only.arpa's delegation should be insecure.

The Domain Name Reservation Considerations in RFC 7050 do not cover whether a delegation should be signed or not. Due to that omission in constructing the set of questions to be asked RFC 7050 fails when the client is behind a validating resolver that has NO SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE of IPV4ONLY.ARPA.

Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: Last Call: (DNS Stateful Operations) to Proposed Standard

Implementation reports are indeed good, yes. On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 10:27 AM, Job Snijders wrote: > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 7:22 PM, Tom Pusateri wrote: > >> On Jun 12, 2018, at 10:28 AM, Job Snijders wrote: > >> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 3:09 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > >>> Yes. I'm using it rig

Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: Last Call: (DNS Stateful Operations) to Proposed Standard

On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 7:22 PM, Tom Pusateri wrote: >> On Jun 12, 2018, at 10:28 AM, Job Snijders wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 3:09 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: >>> Yes. I'm using it right now to implement draft-ietf-dnssd-mdns-relay, and >>> that implementation is working and interoperating.

Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: Last Call: (DNS Stateful Operations) to Proposed Standard

> On Jun 12, 2018, at 10:28 AM, Job Snijders wrote: > > Dear Ted, > > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 3:09 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: >> Yes. I'm using it right now to implement draft-ietf-dnssd-mdns-relay, and >> that implementation is working and interoperating. I don't know of another >> independent

Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: Last Call: (DNS Stateful Operations) to Proposed Standard

The BCP14 keyword compliance question sounds like a worthwhile exercise, but I can't do it this week. I'm certainly not deliberately violating the specification. As to what implementation it is, it's a modification to the mDNSResponder code base to support mDNS queries over the mDNS relay proto

Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: Last Call: (DNS Stateful Operations) to Proposed Standard

Dear Ted, On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 3:09 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > Yes. I'm using it right now to implement draft-ietf-dnssd-mdns-relay, and > that implementation is working and interoperating. I don't know of another > independent implementation yet, unfortunately. Can you elaborate a bit more?

Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: Last Call: (DNS Stateful Operations) to Proposed Standard

Yes. I'm using it right now to implement draft-ietf-dnssd-mdns-relay, and that implementation is working and interoperating. I don't know of another independent implementation yet, unfortunately. On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 4:36 AM, Job Snijders wrote: > Hi all, > > Are there any implementations

[DNSOP] Fwd: Last Call: (DNS Stateful Operations) to Proposed Standard

Hi all, Are there any implementations of this protocol extension? Kind regards, Job -- Forwarded message -- From: The IESG Date: Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 6:20 PM Subject: [DNSOP] Last Call: (DNS Stateful Operations) to Proposed Standard To: IETF-Announce Cc: Tim Wicinski , dnsop@

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for: draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel

Hi, On 11/06/2018 22:15, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On 11 Jun 2018, at 12:43, Job Snijders wrote: > >> For what it's worth - all my concerns have been addressed. > > +1 to Job's feeling. Thank you all. >> I believe >> the document to be in good shape now and would support a progression >> through W