Re: [DNSOP] HTTPS/SVCB on Cloudflare DNS

> On 24 Jul 2020, at 02:43, Alessandro Ghedini wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 01:20:41AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote: >> >> >>> On 23 Jul 2020, at 19:50, Alessandro Ghedini wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 10:11:33AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote: > On 17 Jul 2020, at

Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

Hi all, I wanted to point at a recently published (today!) IESG statement -- https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/statement-on-oppressive-exclusionary-language/ which contains: "We wanted to highlight that initial discussions about this topic are taking place in the general area (a

Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 07:40:25PM +, Paul Vixie wrote: > -1. there are zones lacking primaries, and a secondary which can also > talk to other secondaries gives a second role to those other secondaries. > we must not simply revert to the STD 13 terminology. the role of an > authority server

Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

On Thursday, 23 July 2020 20:10:49 UTC Tony Finch wrote: > Paul Vixie wrote: > > that's why i've recommended we stop talking about "primary servers" or > > "secondary servers", and instead talk about "transfer initiators" and > > "transfer responders" > > Agreed, except that if you include

Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

Paul Vixie wrote: > > that's why i've recommended we stop talking about "primary servers" or > "secondary servers", and instead talk about "transfer initiators" and > "transfer responders" Agreed, except that if you include notify as part of the zone transfer machinery, the question of who is

Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

Joe Abley wrote: > > in my opinion we should find new words and not redefine or > overload the common meaning of primary and secondary. Yes. I don't really like primary/secondary because it implies there are only two categories when there aren't. For zone transfers, each server can (and often

Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

On Thursday, 23 July 2020 18:34:07 UTC Evan Hunt wrote: > On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 01:38:58PM -0400, Joe Abley wrote: > > ... > > > If we are looking for alternative terminology to master/slave (which I am > > not against, because change is a constant and inclusiveness and awareness > > amongst

Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 02:36:42PM -0400, Joe Abley wrote: > Oh, that's something I wasn't aware of. Do you have any examples of > people moving from master/slave to primary/secondary? Aside from RFC 8499: | Slave server: See "Secondary server". | | Master server: See "Primary server".

Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

Hi Evan, On 23 Jul 2020, at 14:34, Evan Hunt wrote: > On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 01:38:58PM -0400, Joe Abley wrote: >> I don't think primary/secondary are exact substitutes for master/slave in >> the way that those four terms are commonly used today. > [...] >> If we are looking for alternative

Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 01:38:58PM -0400, Joe Abley wrote: > I don't think primary/secondary are exact substitutes for master/slave in > the way that those four terms are commonly used today. [...] > If we are looking for alternative terminology to master/slave (which I am > not against, because

Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

Joe Abley wrote: > STD 13 assumes a model where there is a single authoritative nameserver which > acts as a source of truth for zone data ("primary"), from which other > nameservers retrieve data and also make it available ("secondary"). As such > they describe the whole of a simple directed

Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

On 23 Jul 2020, at 13:44, Tim Wicinski wrote: > On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 1:39 PM Joe Abley > wrote: > > If we are looking for alternative terminology to master/slave (which I am not > against, because change is a constant and inclusiveness and awareness amongst >

Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

On 7/23/2020 1:38 PM, Joe Abley wrote: I do appreciate that STD 13 mentions "master" in some cases as a synonym for "primary"; however, it doesn't mention them in a couple with "slave" and I think this is an example of where low-numbered RFCs sometimes need to be read in their historical

Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 1:39 PM Joe Abley wrote: > > If we are looking for alternative terminology to master/slave (which I am > not against, because change is a constant and inclusiveness and awareness > amongst all industries is surely to be supported and encouraged) in my > opinion we should

Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

On 23 Jul 2020, at 13:24, Robert Edmonds wrote: > Michael De Roover wrote: >> Regarding the primary and secondary servers, it's a fair euphemism but this >> among further fracturing of nomenclature in other projects makes this >> definition very fragmented (master/slave is now primary/secondary,

Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

Michael De Roover wrote: > Regarding the primary and secondary servers, it's a fair euphemism but this > among further fracturing of nomenclature in other projects makes this > definition very fragmented (master/slave is now primary/secondary, main, > parent/child, etc). This is something I find

Re: [DNSOP] HTTPS/SVCB on Cloudflare DNS

On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 10:31:50AM -0400, Ben Schwartz wrote: > On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 5:57 AM Alessandro Ghedini > wrote: > > > > > Also btw, currently we always include ipv4hint and ipv6hint in our HTTPS > > responses, this is to avoid breaking connections in multi-CDN scenarios, > > > Note

Re: [DNSOP] HTTPS/SVCB on Cloudflare DNS

On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 01:20:41AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote: > > > > On 23 Jul 2020, at 19:50, Alessandro Ghedini wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 10:11:33AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote: > >> > >> > >>> On 17 Jul 2020, at 03:26, Alessandro Ghedini > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> On Fri, Jul

Re: [DNSOP] HTTPS/SVCB on Cloudflare DNS

> On 23 Jul 2020, at 19:50, Alessandro Ghedini wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 10:11:33AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote: >> >> >>> On 17 Jul 2020, at 03:26, Alessandro Ghedini wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 01:37:35AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote: Do you have a estimate on when

Re: [DNSOP] HTTPS/SVCB on Cloudflare DNS

Exactly. Mandatory is required except when it's not. I'll think of some improved text. Sent from my iCar > On Jul 22, 2020, at 10:09 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: > > mandatory is described thus: > > "In a ServiceMode RR, a SvcParamKey is considered "mandatory" if the RR will > not > function

Re: [DNSOP] HTTPS/SVCB on Cloudflare DNS

On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 10:50:40AM +0100, Alessandro Ghedini wrote: > On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 10:11:33AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote: > > > > > > > On 17 Jul 2020, at 03:26, Alessandro Ghedini > > > wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 01:37:35AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote: > > >> Do you

Re: [DNSOP] HTTPS/SVCB on Cloudflare DNS

On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 10:50:40AM +0100, Alessandro Ghedini wrote: > On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 10:11:33AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote: > > > > > > > On 17 Jul 2020, at 03:26, Alessandro Ghedini > > > wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 01:37:35AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote: > > >> Do you

Re: [DNSOP] HTTPS/SVCB on Cloudflare DNS

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 10:11:33AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote: > > > > On 17 Jul 2020, at 03:26, Alessandro Ghedini wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 01:37:35AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote: > >> Do you have a estimate on when you will enable additional section > >> processing for these

Re: [DNSOP] HTTPS/SVCB on Cloudflare DNS

On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 6:41 PM Ben Schwartz wrote: > On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 9:20 PM Wellington, Brian 40akamai@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > >> ok. So, what this means is that keys listed in the “mandatory” parameter >> must be included as parameters, and are required to be understood by >>

Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

I’ve had several conversations with one of the 8499 authors a few months back and said that we need to adjust this. I let it drop but the topic was going to be part two f our chairs slides next week. The chairs did some reviewing of all Currently adopted documents as well. Thanks Tim

Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

On Thursday, 23 July 2020 08:47:42 UTC libor.peltan wrote: > Hi, > > just a factual comment. > > While primary/secondary = master/slave is indeed a recent transition of > terms among DNS community, and I agree that this should be handled > carefully when writing new RFCs, i introduced the

Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

Hi, just a factual comment. While primary/secondary = master/slave is indeed a recent transition of terms among DNS community, and I agree that this should be handled carefully when writing new RFCs, parent/child is a different relation: `com.` domain is the parent of `example.com.`. I

Re: [DNSOP] HTTPS/SVCB on Cloudflare DNS

On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 at 08:33, Mark Andrews wrote: > On 23 Jul 2020, at 16:51, Petr Špaček wrote: > >8 > > > I'm not native English speaker and I personally find confusing that > sequence of characters "mandatory" is used as verb and also as name of the > key. "optional mandatory" sounds like

Re: [DNSOP] HTTPS/SVCB on Cloudflare DNS

> On 23 Jul 2020, at 16:51, Petr Špaček wrote: > > On 23. 07. 20 3:41, Ben Schwartz wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 9:20 PM Wellington, Brian >> mailto:40akamai@dmarc.ietf.org>> >> wrote: >> >>ok. So, what this means is that keys listed in the “mandatory” parameter >> must be

Re: [DNSOP] HTTPS/SVCB on Cloudflare DNS

On 23. 07. 20 3:41, Ben Schwartz wrote: > On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 9:20 PM Wellington, Brian > mailto:40akamai@dmarc.ietf.org>> > wrote: > > ok.  So, what this means is that keys listed in the “mandatory” parameter > must be included as parameters, and are required to be understood by