Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-wisser-dnssec-automation

2022-04-08 Thread Joe Abley
On Mar 25, 2022, at 18:36, Benno Overeinder wrote: > Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for adoption by > DNSOP, and comments to the list, clearly stating your view. I think it's clear that there are people who want to do this, I think a standard approach is important

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-wisser-dnssec-automation

2022-04-08 Thread Nicklas Pousette
I support this draft and am willing to contribute Nicklas Rg, Nicklas Nicklas Pousette Head of DNS Labs The Swedish Internet Foundation +46 73 655 86 11 https://internetstiftelsen.se/en/ Visiting address: Hammarby Kaj 10D, Stockholm, Sweden Mailing address: Box 92073, 120 07 Stockholm, S

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-rrserial-01.txt

2022-04-08 Thread Petr Špaček
On 07. 04. 22 20:31, Hugo Salgado wrote: On 17:30 07/04, Petr Špaček wrote: On 07. 04. 22 15:47, Paul Vixie wrote: Petr Špaček wrote on 2022-04-06 23:54: Hello, ...  From my perspective, these systems are not rare, quite the contrary: - PowerDNS with a database backend - Multi-master flavo

Re: [DNSOP] Francesca Palombini's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

2022-04-08 Thread Francesca Palombini
Hi Ben, Thanks for your reply. Some additional thoughts inline. Francesca From: iesg on behalf of Ben Schwartz Date: Thursday, 3 March 2022 at 19:27To: Francesca Palombini Cc: Tim Wicinski , dnsop , dnsop-chairs , The IESG , draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-ht...@ietf.org Subject: Re: Francesca Palombini's D

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] DNSSEC as a Best Current Practice

2022-04-08 Thread Paul Hoffman
Now that the document in question has been published as a WG document, it follows the standard IETF rules about consensus. As document author, I will follow those rules to the best of my ability. I see a very strong consensus in this thread against the proposals from Ohta-san, so I think the th

Re: [DNSOP] DNSSEC as a Best Current Practice

2022-04-08 Thread Paul Wouters
On Fri, 8 Apr 2022, Masataka Ohta wrote: First, "CA" is terminology not specific to WebPKI, whatever it means, but PKI in general including DNS. That is, a DNSSEC TLD is a CA. This is incorrect. Or rather, it is equivalent to a CA with a very strict path constraint of being within the TLD. In

Re: [DNSOP] introducing a couple of RRTypes (CRC/CRS) for B2B applications

2022-04-08 Thread Wessels, Duane
Hi Eugène, I read through the draft and have a few suggestions for you to consider: 1) The CRS and CRC RDATA fields have a lot in common with TXT records. On one hand you might find some benefits from making these new RR types have the same parsing, wire format, and presentation format as TXT