Re: [DNSOP] Algorithm implementation recommendations in 8624

On 17 Jun 2020, at 00:35, Tim Wicinski mailto:tjw.i...@gmail.com>> wrote: All The more time I spend referring to the implementation recommendation table in 8624 https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8624.html#page-5 The more time I wonder if there is a way to extend https://www.iana.org/assignmen

[DNSOP] Algorithm implementation recommendations in 8624

All The more time I spend referring to the implementation recommendation table in 8624 https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8624.html#page-5 The more time I wonder if there is a way to extend https://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-sec-alg-numbers/dns-sec-alg-numbers.xhtml to add signing/validation r

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

Michael, RFC1591 says that the IANA (Function Operator) "[...]is not in the business of deciding what is and what is not a country. The selection of the ISO 3166 list as a basis for country code top-level domain names was made with the knowledge that ISO has a

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

[ TOP POST ] As previously noted in https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/7AzjYP3XoLaPYKPjPzQzEn6k7L4/ , in July 2017 I published https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wkumari-dnsop-internal-00, which attempted to reserve .internal "for names which do not have meaning in the global context but d

Re: [DNSOP] DNS RR Type Allocation Request

On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 1:52 PM Tim Wicinski wrote: > > Erik > > You and I talked about this in the past, but I can't seem to find the > email. I spent some time reading the new version over the weekend (sent > in a pull request, open an issue, usual annoying stuff I do) and think > we're ready

[DNSOP] DNS RR Type Allocation Request

Erik You and I talked about this in the past, but I can't seem to find the email. I spent some time reading the new version over the weekend (sent in a pull request, open an issue, usual annoying stuff I do) and think we're ready to submit the RR request. Have you filled out the request from 68

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

On 16 Jun 2020, at 21:26, John R Levine wrote: > >> RFC2606: ".example" is recommended for use in documentation or as examples. > > I had my reasons for https://www.mega-xxx-babes.com That was actually funny :-) Roy ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

RFC2606: ".example" is recommended for use in documentation or as examples. I had my reasons for https://www.mega-xxx-babes.com Regards, John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

On 16 Jun 2020, at 19:52, John Levine wrote: > > In article <3c1f1023-d17d-4739-8ca3-23f28254a...@internetstiftelsen.se> you > write: >> I have a different use case for private TLDs and that is in teaching >> material. We give a DNS class at a university >> here and in examples you cannot be re

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

In article <64f09dbc-d465-4a05-be2f-14c71bec9...@fugue.com> you write: >-=-=-=-=-=- > >On Jun 16, 2020, at 2:52 PM, John Levine wrote: >> When I put domain names in my books as examples, I used real names and >> bought them. In common domains they're not very expensive. > >Have you established a

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-belyavskiy-rfc5933-bis

Hello Ondrej, > 16 июня 2020 г., в 10:52, Ondřej Surý написал(а): > > > > I consider the previous GOST standardization for DNSSEC to be a fiasco. I do not think that _standartization_ was a fiasco. The implementation - definitely was one. That has an explanation, when RFC5933 was published,

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

On Jun 16, 2020, at 2:52 PM, John Levine wrote: > When I put domain names in my books as examples, I used real names and > bought them. In common domains they're not very expensive. Have you established a bequest, then, to cover the cost when you are no longer able? This is the problem with do

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

In article <3c1f1023-d17d-4739-8ca3-23f28254a...@internetstiftelsen.se> you write: >I have a different use case for private TLDs and that is in teaching material. >We give a DNS class at a university >here and in examples you cannot be restricted to .example as TLD because you >need more than on

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-belyavskiy-rfc5933-bis

Dear Ondřej, As we have different statuses for the algorithm, I don't think the CFRG adoption is required. I don't think there are good or bad time periods to adopt nation-wide crypto profiles. For me, the difference between the GOST profile and hypothetical Korean or German profile is close to z

Re: [DNSOP] Are SVCB/HTTPSSVC going to be renamed after all?

That sounds great! Thanks to the authors for getting so many issues cleared up recently. The new version is looking good. As an implementor, I’d like to voice my support for getting the early code point allocation soon. Best, Tommy > On Jun 12, 2020, at 1:43 PM, Tim Wicinski wrote: > > > T

Re: [DNSOP] Hybird Resolver/ DNS invariants

On Tuesday, 16 June 2020 06:56:49 UTC Ralf Weber wrote: > Moin! > > On 16 Jun 2020, at 4:23, Davey Song wrote: > > ... > > I hope it is helpful to provide information including risk for people who > > are doing or going to the same thing. > > > > There are some existing cases in the discussion: >

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

On 15 Jun 2020, at 19:58, Tim Wicinski wrote: > > or since domains are cheap, why not buy a new domain, and use that for the > namespace? > A wise person liked to remind me "Namespaces are architecture decisions”. I have a different use case for private TLDs and that is in teaching material.

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

> On 16 Jun 2020, at 15:51, Mats Dufberg > wrote: > > I support the adoption and I am willing to review the document. Me too! I wish everyone else commenting on this thread just indicated if they supported adoption (or not). Too much of the discussion that’s taking place at the moment seem

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

I support the adoption and I am willing to review the document. --- Mats Dufberg mats.dufb...@internetstiftelsen.se Technical Expert Internetstiftelsen (The Swedish Internet Foundation) Mobile: +46 73 065 3899 https://internetstiftelsen.se/ On 12 Jun

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-belyavskiy-rfc5933-bis

All On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 3:52 AM Ondřej Surý wrote: > [...] > > I would also ask the WG to require a implementation report before we send > this to WGLC. As chair, this statement - I can not stress this strongly enough - determines even the consideration of a Working Group Last Call. (I

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

- I think it would make sense for non-TLDs to be DNAME'd to AS112++'s empty zone (which generates an NXDOMAIN) You want this in the root? * IN DNAME EMPTY.AS112.ARPA. That'd be, um, different. Regards, John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY Please conside

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

On 12. 06. 20 17:12, Tim Wicinski wrote: > > All, > > As we stated in the meeting and in our chairs actions, we're going to run > regular calls for adoptions over the next few months.   We are looking for > *explicit* support for adoption. > > > This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-arend

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-belyavskiy-rfc5933-bis

Hi, I do not hold as strong position as Olafur here, but I concur that the document needs much better rationale. There’s no rationale for adopting the new GOST algorithm at the moment and I would especially like to hear why GOST 2012 should be standardized and EC-KCDSA (Korean) and ECGDSA (German)

Re: [DNSOP] Hybird Resolver/ DNS invariants

In general, the resolver function and the authoritative function are best separated on different servers. When serving local data on a local network it is usually necessary to integrate serving authoritative data into the resolver function. If the proposal if for public DNS servers I no not see