[DNSOP] Please review and provide feedback -- draft-woodworth-bulk-rr

Hello, I've already received a number of great comments and suggestions (Thanks!) but am looking to get this adopted by the WG and appreciate any additional help I can get toward that end. The latest draft is also available via github ( https://github.com/ioneyez/bulk-rr ) and we are open to

[DNSOP] FW: New Version Notification for draft-woodworth-npn-00.txt

Hello, I spoke briefly about this in Montreal and am hoping to get some of you to take a look and provide feedback. We removed this logic from our BULK-RR draft in order to simplify/ streamline it and after a few conversations decided to break it out into a separate draft so it could

[DNSOP] FW: New Version Notification for draft-woodworth-bulk-rr-09.txt

Hi DNSOP, I've updated datatracker for this draft as well. Best, John -- A new version of I-D, draft-woodworth-bulk-rr-09.txt has been successfully submitted by John Woodworth and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-woodworth-bulk-rr Revision: 09 Title: BULK

[DNSOP] FW: New Version Notification for draft-woodworth-npn-00.txt

Hi DNSOP, I've submitted the NPN draft into datatracker. This has been broken out of the original BULK-RR draft. I need to migrate the IPR linkage from BULK-RR to NPN but haven’t figured out this piece as of yet. Best regards, John -- A new version of I-D, draft-woodworth-npn-00.txt has

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-woodworth-bulk-rr-07.txt

> -Original Message- > From: DNSOP [mailto:dnsop-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mikael Abrahamsson > > Hi, I am brought here because of the notification of this in v6ops. > > I am supportive of the general idea of having these kinds of bulk records > standardized. > Hi Mikael, Thank you

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-woodworth-bulk-rr-07.txt

> -Original Message- > From: DNSOP [mailto:dnsop-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Shaw > > I have uses cases where this would be handy. I hope that this progresses. > Hi Daniel, Thank you for taking the time to look over our I-D and your kind words. Thanks, John > > I'd love to

Re: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-woodworth-bulk-rr in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

> -Original Message- > From: DNSOP [mailto:dnsop-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Vernon Schryver > > > From: "Woodworth, John R" <john.woodwo...@centurylink.com> > > > > One could make $GENERATE more efficient without actually > > > imple

Re: [DNSOP] missing use case and problem statement for draft-woodworth-bulk-rr

> -Original Message- > From: DNSOP [mailto:dnsop-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jim Reid > > BTW, if there are cases where an ISP’s customers care about > reverse DNS for their IPv6 addresses, what’s stopping those > customer devices using dynamic update to provision their names > or have

Re: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-woodworth-bulk-rr in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

> From: Jim Reid [mailto:j...@rfc1035.com] > > > On 20 Jul 2017, at 02:17, Woodworth, John R > > <john.woodwo...@centurylink.com> wrote: > > > > this is just a next-gen $GENERATE > > Indeed. We all get that. However $GENERATE is a BIND-ism, like >

Re: [DNSOP] BULK vs. draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse

> -Original Message- > From: DNSOP [mailto:dnsop-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John Levine > > Speaking of nsec-aggressiveuse, while staring out the window of > the train this morning it occurred to me that BULK breaks > NXDOMAIN synthesis, too, both the NSEC kind and the RFC 8020 kind. >

Re: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-woodworth-bulk-rr in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

> -Original Message- > From: DNSOP [mailto:dnsop-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Peter van Dijk > > Hello John, > > 1 and 2 could be covered with a wildcard PTR, as I think Tony Finch pointed > out. > Hi Peter, Thanks for your comments. Wildcards are a good start, or at least they

Re: [DNSOP] DNS versioning, was The DNSOP WG has placed draft-woodworth-bulk-rr in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

> From: DNSOP [mailto:dnsop-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Matthew Pounsett > > > On 20 July 2017 at 17:53, John R Levine wrote: > > That's why I don't share the fears about BULK: you cannot easily > > deploy a new feature that will require a change in the resolvers, > > because

Re: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-woodworth-bulk-rr in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

> -Original Message- > From: DNSOP [mailto:dnsop-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stephane Bortzmeyer > Hi Stéphane, Thanks again for your comments and encouragement. > > > The DNSOP WG has placed draft-woodworth-bulk-rr in state Candidate for > > WG Adoption (entered by Tim Wicinski) > >

Re: [DNSOP] DNS versioning, was The DNSOP WG has placed draft-woodworth-bulk-rr in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

> -Original Message- > From: DNSOP [mailto:dnsop-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John R Levine > > On Thu, 20 Jul 2017, Tony Finch wrote: > > John R Levine wrote: > >> > >> BULK absolutely requires online DNSSEC signing, > > > > This basically means that BULK is a

Re: [DNSOP] DNS versioning, was The DNSOP WG has placed draft-woodworth-bulk-rr in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

> -Original Message- > From: DNSOP [mailto:dnsop-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan > > On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 02:34:48PM +0100, Tony Finch wrote: > > This basically means that BULK is a master-only feature, which implies > > that there's no need for BULK to work across zone

Re: [DNSOP] DNS versioning, was The DNSOP WG has placed draft-woodworth-bulk-rr in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

> From: Tony Finch [mailto:d...@dotat.at] > Hi Tony, Thanks for the feedback. > > John R Levine wrote: > > > > BULK absolutely requires online DNSSEC signing, > > This basically means that BULK is a master-only feature, which > implies that there's no need for BULK to work

Re: [DNSOP] DNS versioning, was The DNSOP WG has placed draft-woodworth-bulk-rr in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

> -Original Message- > From: John R Levine [mailto:jo...@taugh.com] > Hi John, Thanks again for your feedback. > > On Thu, 20 Jul 2017, Woodworth, John R wrote: > > Camp#2) Don't break DNS, even for a second > > Well, yeah, except that there's no such

Re: [DNSOP] DNS versioning, was The DNSOP WG has placed draft-woodworth-bulk-rr in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

> -Original Message- > From: DNSOP [mailto:dnsop-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John Levine > > I realize that my biggest problem with this draft is not that > I don't think that it's useful -- we have lots of RFCs that > turned out to be useless but harmless. It's that it breaks the >

Re: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-woodworth-bulk-rr in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

> -Original Message- > From: DNSOP [mailto:dnsop-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Paul Wouters > > I kind of disagree. > Hi Paul, Thanks for the feedback! > > We are adding something to DNS that's not just a new RRTYPE. It > requires code changes and has a deployment and long tail. If the

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-isp-ip6rdns-03.txt

> -Original Message- > From: DNSOP [mailto:dnsop-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John R Levine > Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2017 1:41 PM > To: Paul Vixie > Cc: dnsop@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-isp-ip6rdns-03.txt > > >> You might want to talk to large providers

Re: [DNSOP] Perl related question on BULK RR

> -Original Message- > From: Woodworth, John R > > > -Original Message- > > From: DNSOP [mailto:dnsop-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tony Finch > ... > > > > So my question is, how does the BULK rewriting system interact > > wi

Re: [DNSOP] Microphone question on back-references - BULK RR

> From: DNSOP [mailto:dnsop-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian Dickson > > > Apologies but I did not hear the full question regarding BULK RR’s > > and the perl like back-references. If you could please repeat > > the question we would be happy to comment. > > > > > > Thanks, > > John > > > >

Re: [DNSOP] BULK RR as optional feature

> -Original Message- > From: DNSOP [mailto:dnsop-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John R Levine > > That's a lot of "if"s. It is quite common for primary and secondary > providers to have only a loose relationship, and they do not know or > care about their detailed capabilities. I swap

Re: [DNSOP] BULK RR as optional feature

> -Original Message- > From: Evan Hunt [mailto:e...@isc.org] > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 06:25:28PM +0000, Woodworth, John R wrote: > > I was under the impression DNSSEC fixed problems with integrity, > > not inconsistency. > > There's an expectation tha

Re: [DNSOP] BULK RR as optional feature

> -Original Message- > From: John R Levine [mailto:jo...@taugh.com] > > On Wed, 29 Mar 2017, Woodworth, John R wrote: > > I am curious why you feel a nameserver unaware of a new record > > type would ever return it instead of the known type it queried? > > No

Re: [DNSOP] BULK RR as optional feature

> -Original Message- > From: DNSOP [mailto:dnsop-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Evan Hunt > > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 10:47:02PM -0500, John R Levine wrote: > > That's exactly the problem -- a server that doesn't handle BULK will > > return the wrong answer. It might return the BULK

Re: [DNSOP] BULK RR as optional feature

> -Original Message- > From: DNSOP [mailto:dnsop-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John R Levine > > > But if you have a primary that supports BULK and a secondary > > that doesn't, then you have two authoritative servers for the same > > domain with the same serial number but one of is

Re: [DNSOP] BULK RR as optional feature

> -Original Message- > From: Evan Hunt [mailto:e...@isc.org] > > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 12:41:26AM +0000, Woodworth, John R wrote: > > I believe this would ultimately be less efficient than generating > > the records on the fly. > > Unquestionably. This cle

[DNSOP] BULK RR Myth[1] - BULK RRs use complicated regex for their syntax

BULK actually does _not_ use regex for its syntax. It does, however, "borrow" from regex in the way it identifies backreferences. The similarities are intentional as to "feel" familiar and be simple to grasp. This familiarity is likely the cause of this misconception. Another is likely the use

Re: [DNSOP] BULK RR as optional feature

> -Original Message- > From: DNSOP [mailto:dnsop-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Evan Hunt > > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 06:31:56PM -, John Levine wrote: > > What if such a server receives BULK by AXFR? By IXFR? > > I agree these scenarios in particular need to be specified. > Hi Evan,

Re: [DNSOP] BULK RR as optional feature

> -Original Message- > From: DNSOP [mailto:dnsop-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John Levine > > At yesterday's session, Tale confirmed that since BULK adds so much > new special purpose complexity to DNS servers, the plan is that > support for it will be optional. > > An optional RRTYPE

Re: [DNSOP] Kindly review draft-woodworth-bulk-rr-05.txt

> -Original Message- > From: Stephane Bortzmeyer [mailto:bortzme...@nic.fr] > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 10:33:50AM +, Woodworth, John R > <john.woodwo...@centurylink.com> wrote a message of 121 lines which said: > > > We welcome _any_ feedback on the

Re: [DNSOP] Perl related question on BULK RR

> -Original Message- > From: DNSOP [mailto:dnsop-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tony Finch > > Woodworth, John R <john.woodwo...@centurylink.com> wrote: > > > Apologies but I did not hear the full question regarding BULK RR's and > > the perl like back

[DNSOP] Perl related question on BULK RR

Apologies but I did not hear the full question regarding BULK RR's and the perl like back-references. If you could please repeat the question we would be happy to comment. Thanks, John -- THESE ARE THE DROIDS TO WHOM I REFER: This communication is the property of CenturyLink and may contain

Re: [DNSOP] Updated NSEC5 protocol spec and paper

> -Original Message- > From: DNSOP [mailto:dnsop-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Paul Hoffman > > On 7 Mar 2017, at 7:29, Shumon Huque wrote: > > > We've requested an agenda slot at the DNSOP working group meeting at > > IETF98 to talk about the NSEC5 protocol. Our chairs have requested > >

Re: [DNSOP] Kindly review draft-woodworth-bulk-rr-05.txt

Shane, Thanks so much for the review, it is very detailed and your comments are fantastic! > John, > > Full disclosure: I hate reverse DNS, which seems to be a strong > motivator for things like $GENERATE and the BULK proposal. :) > :) > The benefit of the BULK proposal is that it performs a

Re: [DNSOP] DNS-Server distribution statistics

-Original Message- From: DNSOP [mailto:dnsop-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Paul Hoffman > > On 11 Feb 2017, at 17:49, Allan Liska wrote: > > > ISC runs a monthly survey of DNS statistics: > > https://ftp.isc.org/www/survey/reports/current/fpdns.txt (this is from > > January 2017). > >

Re: [DNSOP] DNS-Server distribution statistics

Allan, Many thanks for the links. This is great info and right on point! Thanks again, John From: Allan Liska [mailto:al...@allan.org] Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2017 5:49 PM To: Woodworth, John R; dnsop Cc: Ballew, Dean Subject: Re: [DNSOP] DNS-Server distribution statistics ISC runs

[DNSOP] Review of draft [draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any-04.txt]

Olafur, This is my first draft review so apologies if it seems harsh, I really like the concept of this draft. Comments: -- Section 4.1 "Select one RRSet mode" - The section including "...choose a small one(s) to..." seems confusing, a single RRSet is expected why the possibility of multiple

Re: [DNSOP] ALT-TLD and (insecure) delgations.

> On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: > > In message , Ted Lemon writes: > > > > On Feb 8, 2017, at 3:30 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: > > > And if the service has the same privacy issues as .onion has? > > >

[DNSOP] FW: New Version Notification for draft-woodworth-bulk-rr-04.txt

All, I just submitted -04 in response to comments received. As usual, all feedback is welcome. Thanks again, John -- ** I-D "BULK DNS Resource Records" Mini-FAQ 01-31-17 ** --

Re: [DNSOP] ALT-TLD and (insecure) delgations.

> On 06/02/2017 16:55, Tony Finch wrote: > > Ray Bellis wrote: > >> > >> Yes, that's right, with the caveat that all existing locally served > >> zones are in the reverse space - there's no forward zones registered (yet). > > > > There are several :-) RFC 6761 specifies

[DNSOP] FW: New Version Notification for draft-woodworth-bulk-rr-03.txt

All, I've submitted a -03 version to provide additional clarity in a few areas. Also included is a mini-FAQ (below) as the draft is a bit of a long read. As usual, the other authors and I look forward to any questions, concerns or comments. Thanks, John

Re: [DNSOP] FW: New Version Notification for draft-woodworth-bulk-rr-02.txt

R Sent: Friday, July 08, 2016 1:38 PM To: dnsop@ietf.org Cc: Ballew, Dean; Woodworth, John R Subject: [DNSOP] FW: New Version Notification for draft-woodworth-bulk-rr-02.txt All, A new version of this draft has been submitted. I've included a new section regarding some implications of this type

[DNSOP] FW: New Version Notification for draft-woodworth-bulk-rr-02.txt

All, A new version of this draft has been submitted. I've included a new section regarding some implications of this type of RR. As always, all comments are welcome. Regards, John > > > A new version of I-D, draft-woodworth-bulk-rr-02.txt has been successfully > submitted > by John

Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-woodworth-bulk-rr-01.txt

dra...@ietf.org [mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org] > Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2015 5:30 AM > To: Bindinganaveli Raghavan, Shashwath; Ballew, Dean; Woodworth, John > R; Woodworth, John R > Subject: New Version Notification for draft-woodworth-bulk-rr-01.txt > > > A new version of I-D,

Re: [DNSOP] discussion for draft-woodworth-bulk-rr-00.txt

From: Olafur Gudmundsson [mailto:o...@ogud.com] Subject: Re: [DNSOP] discussion for draft-woodworth-bulk-rr-00.txt > > On Nov 2, 2015, at 12:28 AM, Woodworth, John R > <john.woodwo...@centurylink.com> wrote: > > See inline comments: > > > > > -Original M

[DNSOP] discussion for draft-woodworth-bulk-rr-00.txt

All, Apologies for any procedural missteps as I am new to the group but am trainable. I am looking to get some traction on a recent I-D my group is working on and am looking for advice along the way. We are confident this draft can play a significant role in the future of DNS especially as it

Re: [DNSOP] discussion for draft-woodworth-bulk-rr-00.txt

he signed formula plus unsigned result - just as for DNAME). Definitely worth a discussion should we get the opportunity. I had no expectation of a first draft making it through the process intact. Thanks again for your prompt response and invaluable insight. Best regards, John > > On