Reviewer: Ron Bonica
Review result: Ready
Looks well thought out. No glaring problems.
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Folks,
After many years of service, Rob Austein has asked to step down as
DNSOPS WG chair. Thanks to Rob for all that he has done. We look forward
to his continued contributions to the WG.
Please welcome Stephen Morris, who will co-chair the WG along with Peter
Koch.
Folks,
Rob Austein has expressed a wish to step down as chair of DNSOPS. I
would like to thank Rob for his service and would also like to solicit
nominations for his replacement. (Please feel free to self-nominate).
Ron
Folks,
This is a reminder that only two questions are on the table. These are:
- is BCP38 enough to mitigate the attack vectors described in
draft-ietf-dnsop-reflectors-are-evil-06
- is filtering after the attack has begun good enough
Discussions of how many times this attack has been observed i
>
>> First layer of defense: BCP 38
>>
>> Second layer of defense (because there are those who cannot or will not
>> implement the first layer): Restrict recursive service by default
>
> If you mean 'restrict software configuration defaults', I'm OK with
> that.
>
> If the draft is amended to
Dean,
Thanks for this proposal. At his point, I will sit quietly for a while
and let the WG comment on whether they think that your proposed
alternative mitigation is adequate. On Friday, the WG chairs will gauge
consensus and I will take appropriate action.
Ron
De
ling
that he could muster WG consensus around it, he has until this Friday to
describe the mitigation on the mailing list.
Ron
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 01:00:09PM -0400, Ron Bonica wrote:
>> If you believed that there were
Dean Anderson wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Sep 2008, Ron Bonica wrote:
>
>> Do you deny that the vulnerabilities described in this document *could*
>> be exploited? If this is your claim, and you can substantiate it, the WG
>> will entertain your objection.
>
&g
Folks,
Someone on DNSOPS points out that I am calendar challenged. September 5
has already past. I meant to say Friday, September 12.
Ron
Ron Bonica wrote:
> Dean,
>
> On the surface, I deem your objection to be without merit. Unless you
> can
t; and "evil" in
> the subject line was on November 21, 2006, extending date of the WGLC.
> After the extension, there are several new versions, but no WG last
> call. I'm not entirely sure why this document is in the state 'IESG
> Evaluation' or how it got to
10 matches
Mail list logo
