Re: [DNSOP] Possible alt-tld last call?

Hi Paul! Good conversation!  I hope we can discuss some of this "in person" (whatever that means these days) at IETF 115. On 17.10.22 04:20, Paul Wouters wrote: On Sun, 16 Oct 2022, Suzanne Woolf wrote: 1. As far as I can tell, this draft does not comply with RFC 6761. This is a problem for

[DNSOP] Intdir telechat review of draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-bcp-05

Reviewer: Sheng Jiang Review result: Ready I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments t

Re: [DNSOP] Possible alt-tld last call?

On 10/16/2022 9:29 AM, Joe Abley wrote: However, I don't think we are starting from that position. For example we hear there is demand for .giraffe for the giraffe naming system described athttps://giraffe.org/ because using giraffe.org as an anchor for that naming system in the namespace i

Re: [DNSOP] [BEHAVE] [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-momoka-v6ops-ipv6-only-resolver-00.txt

> On 17 Oct 2022, at 08:57, Geoff Huston wrote: > > > >> On 17 Oct 2022, at 7:53 am, Michael Richardson wrote: >> I think that's because >> recursive nameserves effectively have always done an equivalent to "happy >> eyeballs", so the risk is low. >> > > > That certainly was not the case

Re: [DNSOP] Possible alt-tld last call?

On Sun, 16 Oct 2022, Suzanne Woolf wrote: 1. As far as I can tell, this draft does not comply with RFC 6761. This is a problem for two reasons. One could advance the 6761bis proposal document first, which would remove these non-compliance items as those would be no longer needed (as the bis d

Re: [DNSOP] [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-momoka-v6ops-ipv6-only-resolver-00.txt

Hello, I too believe that it's far more common to find dual stack authoritative name servers than normal services. (number of records https://www.employees.org/~dwing/-stats/ ) However for normal services, an IPv6 only client under a NAT64 ca

Re: [DNSOP] Possible alt-tld last call?

On 16.10.22 12:03, Brian Dickson wrote: > On Sun, Oct 16, 2022 at 9:08 AM Eliot Lear wrote: > > > Hiya! > > > > Thanks to Suzanne and the chairs for moving things forward. On this point: > > On 16.10.22 17:22, Warren Kumari wrote: > > > > > > > >> 2. Having the IETF maintain a registry of pseudo

Re: [DNSOP] [BEHAVE] [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-momoka-v6ops-ipv6-only-resolver-00.txt

> On 17 Oct 2022, at 10:58 am, Michael Richardson wrote: > > > Geoff Huston wrote: >>> On 17 Oct 2022, at 7:53 am, Michael Richardson >>> wrote: >>> I think that's because >>> recursive nameserves effectively have always done an equivalent to "happy >>> eyeballs", so the risk is low. > >>

Re: [DNSOP] [BEHAVE] [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-momoka-v6ops-ipv6-only-resolver-00.txt

Geoff Huston wrote: >> On 17 Oct 2022, at 7:53 am, Michael Richardson wrote: >> I think that's because >> recursive nameserves effectively have always done an equivalent to "happy >> eyeballs", so the risk is low. > That certainly was not the case in 2015: https://www.pota

Re: [DNSOP] [BEHAVE] [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-momoka-v6ops-ipv6-only-resolver-00.txt

> On 17 Oct 2022, at 7:53 am, Michael Richardson wrote: > I think that's because > recursive nameserves effectively have always done an equivalent to "happy > eyeballs", so the risk is low. > That certainly was not the case in 2015: https://www.potaroo.net/presentations/2015-10-04-dns-dua

Re: [DNSOP] [BEHAVE] [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-momoka-v6ops-ipv6-only-resolver-00.txt

Joe Abley wrote: > My feeling is that it's far more common to find dual-stack nameservers > reachable directly by v6-only and v4-only clients than it is to find > services that the requested names refer to that are dual-stack and > similarly reachable. On the face of it this seems

Re: [DNSOP] Possible alt-tld last call?

Op 16 okt. 2022 om 15:03 heeft Brian Dickson het volgende geschreven: > For example, using a hash function, such as sha2-256, with output encoded as > base32hex. > (This is just an example; any suitable function that takes URI as input and > produces an ASCII DNS-compatible label as output wo

Re: [DNSOP] Possible alt-tld last call?

On Sun, Oct 16, 2022 at 9:08 AM Eliot Lear wrote: > Hiya! > > Thanks to Suzanne and the chairs for moving things forward. On this point: > On 16.10.22 17:22, Warren Kumari wrote: > > > >> 2. Having the IETF maintain a registry of pseudo-SLDs concerns me on the >> basis that having the IETF “reco

Re: [DNSOP] [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-momoka-v6ops-ipv6-only-resolver-00.txt

Hi again, On Oct 16, 2022, at 13:09, Momoka Yamamoto wrote: > [...] However, we thought that in theory (but maybe not currently) an > iterative resolver is the only application that actually needs IPv4 to > operate. I'm interested in this perspective. My feeling is that it's far more commo

Re: [DNSOP] [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-momoka-v6ops-ipv6-only-resolver-00.txt

Thank you for your comments. I think the word "dual-stack" can mean different states for people. My understanding was that a client under a NAT64 that can only send IPv6 packets is an IPv6-only client. It may contact IPv4 servers using DNS64 and NAT64, but the client application will be under the

Re: [DNSOP] [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-momoka-v6ops-ipv6-only-resolver-00.txt

Thank you for your feedback Mark, Having the OS's support is great in the way that all applications on the OS can use IPv4. However, we thought that in theory (but maybe not currently) an iterative resolver is the only application that actually needs IPv4 to operate. You may have concerns for DNS6

Re: [DNSOP] Possible alt-tld last call?

Hiya! Thanks to Suzanne and the chairs for moving things forward.  On this point: On 16.10.22 17:22, Warren Kumari wrote: 2. Having the IETF maintain a registry of pseudo-SLDs concerns me on the basis that having the IETF “recognize” (if only by recording) such pseudo-delegations

Re: [DNSOP] Possible alt-tld last call?

On Sun, Oct 16, 2022 at 11:03 AM, Suzanne Woolf wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > > The chairs have gotten a couple of requests, off-list and on, for a WGLC > on draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld. > > We’ve reviewed the current draft closely and have some concerns that we > feel need to be resolved before any

[DNSOP] Possible alt-tld last call?

Dear Colleagues, The chairs have gotten a couple of requests, off-list and on, for a WGLC on draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld. We’ve reviewed the current draft closely and have some concerns that we feel need to be resolved before any effort to move the draft forward. (Suzanne wrote this but it’s bee

[DNSOP] Dnsdir last call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5933-bis-10

Reviewer: Jim Reid Review result: Ready with Nits The I-D is a no brainer. It requests a code point for a new crypto algorithm for Secure DNS and deprecates one for an algorithm that has been obsoleted. Some language nits. 1) The text in 4.1 "algorithm number 23 is used here as an example..." sh