Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Re: meeting agenda?

Is there an agenda ready? Meeting is next week and I’d like to make travel arrangement depending on the agenda for 2nd session. Alain > On Mar 9, 2018, at 6:08 PM, 神明達哉 wrote: > > Thanks, I'm looking forward to seeing it:-) > >> On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 11:05 AM, Tim Wicinski wrote: >> >> Hi

Re: [DNSOP] In a vacuum, nobody can hear you scream, was On the call for adoption on Special Use Names

> On Oct 7, 2016, at 6:51 AM, John Levine wrote: > > f someone creates popular software leaking requests for > .PICKLE, we can grouse all we want but since we're not the Network > Police, there's not much we can do about it. There is not much that can be done after the fact, I agree. However, t

Re: [DNSOP] On the call for adoption on Special Use Names (Please! Pretty please, with a cherry on top?!)

On Sep 29, 2016, at 8:37 PM, Warren Kumari mailto:war...@kumari.net>> wrote: On Thursday, September 29, 2016, Ted Lemon mailto:mel...@fugue.com>> wrote: So, if anyone is still wondering why we need a /good/ problem statement, this discussion is why. You are both taking past reach other becaus

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-05.txt

> On Sep 27, 2016, at 2:38 PM, Jim Reid wrote: > > They both come up short as problem statements IMO. I’m struggling to find > words to succinctly describe what problem the WG is expected to solve - sorry > about that -- since it appears to be a layer 9+ matter. Both drafts seem to > be conce

Re: [DNSOP] More on Special Use Domain Registry

> On Sep 23, 2016, at 8:15 AM, Edward Lewis wrote: > > If it seems that there is limited discussion during this two-week period and > the consensus is that this is not a topic for the WG, I think that it is > understandable. Although many in DNSOP WG have expertise for this, the > roster of

Re: [DNSOP] On the call for adoption on Special Use Names (Please! Pretty please, with a cherry on top?!)

> On Sep 21, 2016, at 8:31 PM, George Michaelson wrote: > > On the other hand, the longer documents goes further in recognizing > name processes are really inherently tied to ICANN process more than > technical merit arguments. This pleases me, because I feel drawn to > the view the problems are

Re: [DNSOP] moving forward on special use names

> On Sep 20, 2016, at 7:46 AM, Suzanne Woolf wrote: > > The “toxic waste” names are a “use case” in the sense that people keep asking > about. The identified need for a default namespace in the homenet protocols > represents another use case. There are many use cases for reserving names unde

Re: [DNSOP] moving forward on special use names

> On Sep 17, 2016, at 4:08 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > > Alain, here's an example, from the abstract: > >When an end-user triggers resolution of a name on a system that >supports multiple, different protocols or resolution mechanisms, it >is desirable that the protocol used is unambiguou

Re: [DNSOP] moving forward on special use names

> On Sep 17, 2016, at 11:38 AM, Ted Lemon wrote: > > One of the reasons we published a new document about this is that it seemed > that the original effort had gone way too far down the path toward solutions, > without there being a clear agreement on what problems exist, and what > problems

Re: [DNSOP] moving forward on special use names

What would really help here would be standardize a way to measure toxicity. We could then track a specific string toxicity over time, and maybe then define a threshold where it is OK or not OK to delegate that particular string. I would personally agree with your assessment that maintaining this

Re: [DNSOP] moving forward on special use names

> On Sep 12, 2016, at 6:43 PM, Warren Kumari wrote: > > Please, I know many are tired of this topic, but it really is important, so > please participate and send in your views. +1 I also would like to strongly recommend people read the latest version of each documents. They both have evolved

[DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-06.txt

Dear wg, We published today a new version of draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem. The draft has been simplified even further in an attempt to make it more readable. Also, the abstract clarifies that this document is a problem statement about issues around RFC6761 and not a problem statemen

Re: [DNSOP] Adopting draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem as the problem statement for special-use domain names (6761bis)

I’ve updated draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem to include the two missing points raised yesterday by Paul. The new draft is available at: https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-05.txt Alain > On Jun 28, 2016, at 5:27 PM, Alain Durand wrote: >

Re: [DNSOP] Adopting draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem as the problem statement for special-use domain names (6761bis)

Paul, > On Jun 28, 2016, at 5:00 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > > The other document that this WG has considered, draft-tldr-sutld-ps, has not > been updated to be less wordy and less historical. Having said that, there > are a few bits from Section 4 of that document that I think should be added

[DNSOP] New version: draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-04.txt

Dear wg, I’ve updated the 6761 problem statement draft. It is now available at https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-04.txt Changes from the previous version (-03): - fixed some broken english c

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call draft-ietf-dnsop-isp-ip6rdns

Section 2.5. "Dynamically Generate PTR When Queried ('On the Fly')" was originally written years ago. Some recent announcement from DNS vendors generating and signing DNS records on the fly seem to be an existence proof that this would actually work and the scalability concerns, certainly valid

Re: [DNSOP] [rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org: RFC 7788 on Home Networking Control Protocol]

> On Apr 25, 2016, at 3:31 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 08:18:35AM +0200, > Patrik Fältström wrote > a message of 36 lines which said: > >> Either .HOME should not have been mentioned, or it should be added >> to the registry. > > I fully agree it should have us

Re: [DNSOP] Alternative Special-Use TLD problem statement draft

> On Apr 7, 2016, at 11:17 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > > draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem is full of FUD about how > ICANN could be pissed off by a decision of the IETF to add Stephane, That is certainly your right to read it that way, but it is not what the authors are saying,

Re: [DNSOP] Formal syntax in the Special-Use domain registry (Was: Alternative Special-Use TLD problem statement draft

On 4/7/16, 8:13 AM, "DNSOP on behalf of Stephane Bortzmeyer" wrote: >It is funny that draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem spends a lot >of time in political rants and seldom mentions this very practical >limit of RFC 6761. That was mentioned in the -00 version. The point was brought up in Y

Re: [DNSOP] Alternative Special-Use TLD problem statement draft

From: DNSOP on behalf of Ted Lemon Date: Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 2:53 PM To: Paul Hoffman Cc: "dnsop@ietf.org" , Ted Lemon Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Alternative Special-Use TLD problem statement draft So to answer a slightly different question than the one you asked, what I am proposing is

Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-01

> On Mar 29, 2016, at 3:50 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > >> On 29 Mar 2016, at 8:25, Philip Homburg wrote: >> >> One option would be to have a process that essentially says: >> - The IETF decides whether the proposal is technically sound or not >> - There is a .alt domain with a registry. Protocols

Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-01

> On Mar 28, 2016, at 10:05 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 10:32:41PM +0000, Alain Durand wrote: > >> My perspective is that, at the end of the day, a name is a name is a >> name. > > Your argument is now circular. You cannot use a premi

Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-01

aking solely for myself. > On Mar 28, 2016, at 5:54 PM, Ralph Droms wrote: > > >> On Mar 28, 2016, at 5:41 PM 3/28/16, Alain Durand >> wrote: >> >> Andrew, >> >> This is the very registration in 6761 that makes (or would make) those names >&

Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-01

Andrew, This is the very registration in 6761 that makes (or would make) those names special, i.e. not ordinary. Those name could as well have been reserved in the previous ICANN gTLD round or in the next one for regular DNS purpose. The is nothing "non-ordinary" about the strings themselves...

Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-01

Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 28, 2016, at 1:31 PM, Suzanne Woolf wrote: > > As a practical focus: sometime ago, DNSOP adopted and then parked > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld/. This draft > proposes a special use names registry entry that would be expected to > fu

Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-01

On 3/26/16, 11:30 PM, "DNSOP on behalf of Andrew Sullivan" wrote: >I guess my point was merely that your examples seemed only to be >arguing from this or that trade or service mark to some conclusion >that the IETF had an obvious problem to contemplate. But the >registrations in 6761 are, not go

Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-01

> On Mar 25, 2016, at 1:48 PM, Ralph Droms wrote: > >>> >>> By design, RFC 6761 makes no >>> statement about a specific WG or evaluation body or process. >> >> Which is, of course, one of the key problems. It results in an undefined >> decision process dependent on the individual subjective e

[DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-01

Dear wg, draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-01 has been posted today. It is available at: https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-proble m-01.txt It is an individual submission, not a working group item. It reflects the discussions the initial 3 authors have

Re: [DNSOP] Questions about draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-00

Stephane, The following paragraph in section 2 was an attempt at capturing your point: " Such usage, which a few commenters have referred to as "protocol switching," is not limited to "protocol switch" in the strict sense of indicating specific protocols on the wire. It could indicate to

Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-jjmb-sunset4-dns-forwarding-ipv4aas-00.txt

> On Nov 3, 2015, at 7:01 PM, Tony Finch wrote: > > Alain Durand wrote: >> >> In the particular case of the communication between the CPE and the ISP >> DNS recursive resolver, the two parties are within the same administrative >> authority. Thus, the need

Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-jjmb-sunset4-dns-forwarding-ipv4aas-00.txt

> On Nov 3, 2015, at 3:41 AM, Ebersman, Paul > wrote: > > > On 03Nov, 2015, at 5:31 PM, Alain Durand wrote: > >> In the particular case of the communication between the CPE and the ISP >> DNS recursive resolver, the two parties are within the same administrativ

Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-jjmb-sunset4-dns-forwarding-ipv4aas-00.txt

I thought about it and re-read what we wrote in 3901. 3901 talks about servers that need to deal with other parties: recursive resolvers and zone servers. It provides guidelines for the stability of entire DNS system. In the particular case of the communication between the CPE and the ISP DNS rec

Re: [DNSOP] Draft -domain-names-01

Ed's document is not about DNS but about names. That is actually the whole point. So, IMHO, it should not be redirected to a wg that needs better understanding of DNS but to a wg that needs better understanding of names... I could also argue that this argument also applies to the discussion on

Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-jjmb-sunset4-dns-forwarding-ipv4aas-00.txt

John, Such recommendation can be found in various IPv4aas documents. See RFC6333 section 5.5 [DS-lite] , RFC7596 section 5.1 [lw4over6] and RFC7597 section 10 [MAP]. Curious, what is the rationale to spell this out in a separate document? Alain On 11/2/15, 11:30 PM, "DNSOP on behalf of Brzozow

Re: [DNSOP] Thoughts on the top level name space

On 7/7/15, 8:28 PM, "DNSOP on behalf of hellekin" wrote: >In my opinion, what we need is already there, and is called RFC6761. >Now I'm all ears for what needs to be done to enhance RFC6761 process. Here is a short list: - RFC6761 does not say anything wrt to coordination between IETF and ICA

Re: [DNSOP] Thoughts on the top level name space

Putting the focus on this part of Steve¹s original email for now: On 7/5/15, 7:26 AM, "DNSOP on behalf of Steve Crocker" wrote: > >o ICANN speaks indistinctly about subset 5. > >o Does the IETF have a process for moving a name from subset 2 to subset >4? Ideally, I would argue we may not need s

Re: [DNSOP] Interim Meeting on Special Names and RFC 6761

On 4/30/15, 11:23 AM, "Warren Kumari" wrote: >The RIPE staff has been very nice and made a room available at RIPE-70 >: > > Meerman I/II for ~30 people on Tuesday 12 May 18:00- 20:00 Amsterdam > > Jaap Very cool. Do we need to sign up? Alain. smime.p7s

Re: [DNSOP] draft-howard-isp-ip6rdns-07.txt

Commenting on an old draft I had worked/started with Lee on many years agoŠ! 1) The intro should make it clear that this document DOES NOT recommend any solutions, it just describe the trade-offs. In fact, none of the solutions are really good. 2) there should be a longer discussion of hosts usin