Re: [DNSOP] [dns-privacy] OARC 43 - Call for Contribution

A distinct possibility is that it will happen in Santa Marta, Colombia, and will be colocated with LAC DNS Week and ICANN DNS Symposium. Previous editions websites: https://dnsweek.lat/en https://www.icann.org/ids Rubens > Em 17 de abr. de 2024, à(s) 12:00, Petr Špaček escreveu: > > The

Re: [DNSOP] QNAME minimization, we screwed up and it's your problem

> > Note that my original point was that if the current RBL lives at > antispam.rbl-vendor.org, simply moving it to _antispam.rbl-vendor.org > might fix it if the underscore handling mentioned in the minimized query > RFC is actually implemented with some code in the current implementations, > in

Re: [DNSOP] Delegation acceptance checks [was: Re: [Ext] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extension for lame delegation definition]

> Em 6 de mai. de 2023, à(s) 12:20, John Levine escreveu: > > It appears that Joe Abley said: >> Pre-delegation checks add friction to the domain registration process. They >> further complicate the commuications between different actors in the >> commercial graph >> (registrars, registries

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

I wonder what would have happened if this RFC was available a time before IDNs were defined, someone decided to use .xn and assume xn was only an internal use thing. Rubens > On 12 Jun 2020, at 12:12, Tim Wicinski wrote: > > > All, > > As we stated in the meeting and in our chairs actions

Re: [DNSOP] Proposal: Whois over DNS

I like the overall idea, but I believe we should let go the name WHOIS. What about "_contact" for the fields instead of "_whois" ? I like the All record as an option. I don't agree with your reasoning for this, but we can agree on something to be done for different reasons, too. I understan

Re: [DNSOP] Verifying TLD operator authorisation

> On 13 Jun 2019, at 23:56, Nick Johnson wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 2:51 PM Rubens Kuhl <mailto:rube...@nic.br>> wrote: > > >> On 13 Jun 2019, at 23:18, Nick Johnson > <mailto:nick=40ethereum@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote: >> >> I&

Re: [DNSOP] Verifying TLD operator authorisation

> On 13 Jun 2019, at 23:18, Nick Johnson > wrote: > > I'm working on a system that needs to authenticate a TLD owner/operator in > order to take specific actions. We had intended to handle this by requiring > them to publish a token in a TXT record under a subdomain of nic.tld, but > it's b

Re: [DNSOP] Mail addresses in .arpa

John, Have you tried sending e-mail from this address to Google, Microsoft and Zoho mail systems ? (with SPF, please) Rubens > On 8 Apr 2018, at 15:14, John R. Levine wrote: > > One day when I should have been doing something else, I make some ..arpa > e-mail addresses. > > Try sending

Re: [DNSOP] ICANN Name collision framework

> On Aug 20, 2017, at 12:03 AM, Suzanne Woolf wrote: > > Hi, > > > On Aug 19, 2017, at 11:47 AM, Rubens Kuhl <mailto:rube...@nic.br>> wrote: > >> (Sorry if you have received more than 1 copy of this e-mail, since this is >> being sent

[DNSOP] ICANN Name collision framework

(Sorry if you have received more than 1 copy of this e-mail, since this is being sent to technical mailing lists focusing on DNS) There is ongoing policy development effort within ICANN towards subsequent procedures of new gTLDs releases; during the last round in 2012, one of the last pieces of

Re: [DNSOP] Mitigation of name collisions

> >> or if >> the name-servers serving the wildcard were required to collect and >> publish information and statistics. This would have allowed analysis >> of the effectiveness of the mitigations, etc. > > > This, however, is more interesting and should another round occur, I think > it'd

Re: [DNSOP] Mitigation of name collisions

> >> or if >> the name-servers serving the wildcard were required to collect and >> publish information and statistics. This would have allowed analysis >> of the effectiveness of the mitigations, etc. > > > This, however, is more interesting and should another round occur, I think > it'd

Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: (The .onion Special-Use Domain Name) to Proposed Standard

> Em 17/07/2015, à(s) 17:08:000, Ted Lemon escreveu: > > On 07/17/2015 12:40 PM, Rubens Kuhl wrote: >> - Deprecating that part of RFC6761 that allowed the .ONION request, shutting >> this door; > This would likely result in Warren's draft never getting consensus,

Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: (The .onion Special-Use Domain Name) to Proposed Standard

> >> More seriously, does that mean you're opposing the .onion draft, or are >> you simply drifting away to the later work on RFC6761bis? I'm asking >> because the authors requested .onion, not .tor, nor .tor.alt, nor >> .tor.external. > > by 6761, .ONION is a valid request and your papers are i

Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: (The .onion Special-Use Domain Name) to Proposed Standard

> Em 15/07/2015, à(s) 16:21:000, hellekin escreveu: > > On 07/15/2015 03:46 PM, Edward Lewis wrote: >> >> What if I copied the onion draft, changed all of the uses of onion to >> carrot, and then threw in some supporting documents to describe some >> other system that used carrot as it's base i

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

> Em 08/07/2015, à(s) 14:33:000, Edward Lewis escreveu: > > On 7/8/15, 7:36, "Suzanne Woolf" wrote: > >> For example, the distinction between gTLDs and ccTLDs is of great >> importance to ICANN and to participants in its decisions, but of less >> obvious relevance to an application developer o

Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 6761 interim and next steps

> > It would be helpful to me in discerning consensus to separate two different > concepts here. > > 1. Delegating home/corp/mail in the root zone would be bad. > 2. Adding home/corp/mail to the special-use name registry would be good. > > Again, trying my best to speak as a disinterested obse

Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 6761 interim and next steps

> Em 26/05/2015, à(s) 18:18:000, John Levine escreveu: > >> I'm curious about one of those TLDs: MAIL. Besides dotless "mail", which >> seems to hit >> the root at very high rate (lack of negative caching) and shouldn't be ever >> allowed to >> exist, and a few meaningful labels like local.mai

Re: [DNSOP] followup and proposed actions: RFC 6761 interim and next steps

> Em 26/05/2015, à(s) 15:50:000, Lyman Chapin escreveu: > > Hi Suzanne - > >> HOME/CORP/MAIL (draft-chapin-additional-reserved-tlds-02): >> >> * This is the most controversial of the RFC 6761 drafts and the one most >> driven by policy concerns > > It is not driven by policy concerns; it is

Re: [DNSOP] Interim DNSOP WG meeting on Special Use Names: some reading material

Besides ccTLD, out of ICANN contractual reach, looks like TLDs from Uniregistry (including ISC servers) and Neustar are the ones most mentioned here. Any outreach attempt, successful or otherwise, with Uniregistry, ISC and Neustar ? Rubens > On May 18, 2015, at 8:50 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: >

Re: [DNSOP] relax the requirement for PTR records?

> Em 13/05/2015, à(s) 12:05:000, Paul Wouters escreveu: > > On Wed, 13 May 2015, Lee Howard wrote: > >> Is there consensus now that ISPs don’t need to provide PTRs for their >> customers? > > No. > > As long as the anti-spam meassures include refusing email from IPv6 > without PTR's, such a

Re: [DNSOP] Terminology: IDN

> Em 04/05/2015, à(s) 11:58:000, Paul Hoffman escreveu: > > Greetings. As I was removing the definition of ccTLDs based on the recent > discussion, I realized that there was no stand-alone definition of IDNs. > Proposal: > > IDN --- The common abbreviation for "internationalized domain name".

Re: [DNSOP] discussion for draft-appelbaum-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt

> On Mar 17, 2015, at 4:36 PM, Alec Muffett > wrote: > > Hi Ruben, > > As I think you’ll see from the document, in our seeking classification of > “.onion” in the “special use domains registry” under the terms governing that > space, I think it’s fair for me to say that N

Re: [DNSOP] discussion for draft-appelbaum-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt

> On Mar 17, 2015, at 4:01 PM, Alec Muffett <mailto:al...@fb.com>> wrote: > > Hi Rubens! > > On 3/17/15, 6:34 PM, "Rubens Kuhl" mailto:rube...@nic.br>> > wrote: > >>> >> And where in this ballot is there a need for explicit rese

Re: [DNSOP] discussion for draft-appelbaum-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt

> On Mar 17, 2015, at 3:02 PM, Alec Muffett wrote: > > Rubens, allow me please to direct your attention to: > > > > https://cabforum.org/2015/02/18/ballot-144-validation-rules-dot-onion-names > / > And where in this ballot is there a need for explicit reserving of .onion, since CAs already

Re: [DNSOP] discussion for draft-appelbaum-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt

Considering .onion is a non-resolving TLD, how would a CA issue a certificate for a .onion name that they can't verify whether the requester is the administrator of that service ? DV certificates can use lots of mechanisms to verify that, but is one of them feasible for CAs to use ? Rubens

Re: [DNSOP] IPR disclosure related to draft-ietf-dnsop-root-loopback

> > when i first heard about > i went to people i know inside > google and asked that this be moved into their "royalty-free" category. in > general they (and i suspect verisign also) don't want to constrain pub

Re: [DNSOP] Updating the DNS Registration Model to Keep Pace with Today’s Internet

Moving to peppiest is a market concentration movement, since it's expected that only a few DNS providers will be able to justify having permanent connection to registries to use them as DNS updating mechanisms. DNS itself can be the enabler of a more inclusive way to do this. If it makes sens

Re: [DNSOP] identifying an identifier's name space was Re: draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names-03

> What I’m commenting does not directly answer whether the draft fulfills the > requirements for an application to the special needs registry. At some > higher level I wonder that even if these names were listed there whether the > problem of managing the identifiers will be solved. The desire

Re: [DNSOP] "Optimization" in draft-ietf-dnsop-qname-minimisation

> Of those the ones using DNSSEC will suffer due to the difficulty of getting > DNSKEY and DS records for the “skipped” delegations. You can corroborate or negate the mentioned difficulty using foo.eng.br as an example, since it's signed at all levels. Rubens

Re: [DNSOP] "Optimization" in draft-ietf-dnsop-qname-minimisation

> Em 05/01/2015, à(s) 14:33:000, Paul Hoffman escreveu: > > On Jan 4, 2015, at 12:13 PM, David Conrad wrote: "Sending the full qname to the authoritative name server is a tradition, not a protocol requirment." I'd actually call it an optimization, not a tradition. >>> >>>

Re: [DNSOP] Comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-qname-minimisation

> As mentioned before, there are several ways to implement qname > minimisation. Two main strategies are the aggressive one and the lazy > one. In the aggressive one, the resolver only sends NS queries as long > as it does not know the zone cuts. This is the safest, from a privacy > point of view.

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-negative-trust-anchors-00.txt

> Em 16/12/2014, à(s) 15:54:000, Warren Kumari escreveu: > > On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 9:17 PM, Rubens Kuhl wrote: >> >> My feedback to a possible -01 version is to add something related to not >> consider NTAs for the upper hierarchy of a failed DNSSEC domain. For

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-negative-trust-anchors-00.txt

My feedback to a possible -01 version is to add something related to not consider NTAs for the upper hierarchy of a failed DNSSEC domain. For instance, even if I see a good number of .gov domains failed DNSSEC, adding a NTA configuration for .gov would not be considered good operational practic

Re: [DNSOP] [dns-operations] hong kong workshop, day 2, live link

> Em 09/12/2014, à(s) 14:09:000, Rubens Kuhl escreveu: > >> >> Em 09/12/2014, à(s) 14:03:000, Eric Brunner-Williams >> escreveu: >> >> On 12/9/14 7:29 AM, Rubens Kuhl wrote: >>> Paul, >>> >>> Complementing what Edmon Chung me

Re: [DNSOP] [dns-operations] hong kong workshop, day 2, live link

> Em 09/12/2014, à(s) 14:03:000, Eric Brunner-Williams > escreveu: > > On 12/9/14 7:29 AM, Rubens Kuhl wrote: >> Paul, >> >> Complementing what Edmon Chung mentioned that root-servers was already >> reserved in the last new gTLD round, here follows the

Re: [DNSOP] [dns-operations] hong kong workshop, day 2, live link

Paul, Complementing what Edmon Chung mentioned that root-servers was already reserved in the last new gTLD round, here follows the complete list of reserved names: AFRINIC IANA-SERVERS NRO ALAC ICANN RFC-EDITOR APNIC IESG RIPE ARIN IETF ROOT-SERVERS ASO INTERNIC RSSAC CCNSO INVALID SSAC EXAMPLE

Re: [DNSOP] [dns-privacy] Qname minimization IPR

> On Oct 25, 2014, at 2:03 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker > wrote: > > The claims are broad, not specific to one field of use. > > But there isn't a patent yet and they may have been waiting to file after > grant. > > It is possible for someone other than the IPR holder to file but best if its >