[DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-ns-revalidation-01.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations WG of the IETF. Title : Delegation Revalidation by DNS Resolvers Authors : Shumon Huque Paul

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Consensus check on underscore names and draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc7816bis

" On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 6:18 PM Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > > [ Resending complete message, previous draft was incomplete... ] > > > On 12 Jul 2021, at 11:18 am, Paul Hoffman wrote: > > > > The current text is sufficient to tell resolver developers, and resolver > > operators, why they should

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Consensus check on underscore names and draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc7816bis

[ Resending complete message, previous draft was incomplete... ] > On 12 Jul 2021, at 11:18 am, Paul Hoffman wrote: > > The current text is sufficient to tell resolver developers, and resolver > operators, why they should even think about underscore labels when they > create a QNAME

Re: [DNSOP] Consensus check on underscore names and draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc7816bis

On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 2:20 AM Petr Špaček wrote: > On 08. 07. 21 18:15, Brian Dickson wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 7:29 AM Petr Špaček > > wrote: > > > > On 07. 07. 21 19:54, Warren Kumari wrote: > > > Hi there all, > > > > > > I wanted

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Consensus check on underscore names and draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc7816bis

> On 12 Jul 2021, at 11:18 am, Paul Hoffman wrote: > > The current text is sufficient to tell resolver developers, and resolver > operators, why they should even think about underscore labels when they > create a QNAME minimisation strategy. Elevating such a strategy to a SHOULD > as a

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Consensus check on underscore names and draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc7816bis

On 12. 07. 21 17:18, Paul Hoffman wrote: The current text is sufficient to tell resolver developers, and resolver operators, why they should even think about underscore labels when they create a QNAME minimisation strategy. Elevating such a strategy to a SHOULD as a work-around for broken

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Consensus check on underscore names and draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc7816bis

The current text is sufficient to tell resolver developers, and resolver operators, why they should even think about underscore labels when they create a QNAME minimisation strategy. Elevating such a strategy to a SHOULD as a work-around for broken middleboxes that might (hopefully!) be fixed

[DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional-01.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations WG of the IETF. Title : Glue In DNS Referral Responses Is Not Optional Authors : M. Andrews

Re: [DNSOP] Consensus check on underscore names and draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc7816bis

On 08. 07. 21 18:00, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: On 8 Jul 2021, at 10:28 am, Petr Špaček wrote: With my implementer hat on, I say "no", I don't see a compelling reason to "mandate" it. Keep it at MAY/optional level and leave it to implementers to decide what's best for their implementation and

Re: [DNSOP] Consensus check on underscore names and draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc7816bis

On 08. 07. 21 18:15, Brian Dickson wrote: On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 7:29 AM Petr Špaček > wrote: On 07. 07. 21 19:54, Warren Kumari wrote: > Hi there all, > > I wanted to check the consensus on a point brought up during IETF LC / > OpsDir

Re: [DNSOP] Consensus check on underscore names and draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc7816bis

tl;dr: No. On Wed, 2021-07-07 at 13:54 -0400, Warren Kumari wrote: > If resolving " _ldap._tcp.ad.example.com", once you hit the _tcp label > you are quite likely in ENT territory, and some implementations > (especially those behind firewalls / middleboxes) are still broken. Then they shall