Keith asked for a ID.
Filename:draft-andrews-dns-no-response-issue
Revision:00
Title: A Common Operational Problem in DNS Servers - Failure To
Respond.
Creation date: 2013-05-21
Group: Individual Submission
Number of pages: 5
URL:
On 5/20/13 6:42 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 21/05/2013 13:06, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Monday, May 20, 2013 19:49 -0400 Rob Austein
s...@hactrn.net wrote:
At Mon, 20 May 2013 10:18:21 -0400, John C. Klensin wrote:
This is not my primary (or even secondary) area of expertise
but, given
Dan and John,
Thanks for the exchange last week. As chair of ICANN's Board of Directors and
an active participant in ICANN's current effort to take a fresh look at the
Whois architecture and operation, your notes catch my attention in multiple
ways. But first, for the benefit of under forty
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:26:39AM +1000,
Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote
a message of 52 lines which said:
I'm not sure what the solution should be but regular audits of
delegated nameservers by infrastructure operator and removal of
delegations after a grace period
Let's not reinvent
dear emperor, despite the braggadocio, there seems to be a shortage of
attire. icann is notorious for pretending to be open but being
effectively closed. it solicits public comment and ignores it. i could
go on and on, but i am far less wordy.
randy
On 21/05/2013 10:42, Steve Crocker wrote:
As I said above, I invite anyone who is interested to participate.
The IETF, ICANN, the RIRs, ISOC, W3C and other organizations have all arisen
within the ecosystem that accompanies the growth and prevalence of the
Internet. It is natural for there
Dear Randy,
On 21/05/2013 11:58, Randy Bush wrote:
dear emperor, despite the braggadocio, there seems to be a shortage of
attire. icann is notorious for pretending to be open but being
effectively closed. it solicits public comment and ignores it. i could
go on and on, but i am far less
In message 20130521090727.gb17...@nic.fr, Stephane Bortzmeyer writes:
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:26:39AM +1000,
Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote
a message of 52 lines which said:
I'm not sure what the solution should be but regular audits of
delegated nameservers by infrastructure
On 05/20/2013 04:08 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Publication of EUI-48 or EUI-64 addresses in the global DNS may
result in privacy issues in the form of unique trackable identities.
This might also result in such MAC addresses being spoofed, thereby allowing
some sort of direct attack.
On 2013-05-21, at 09:36, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote:
Publishing EUI-XX addresses in the DNS is a bad idea.
With respect, *my* question as the author of this document is simply whether
the specification provided is unambiguous and sufficient. It was my
understanding that
On 05/21/2013 10:04 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
On 2013-05-21, at 09:36, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote:
Publishing EUI-XX addresses in the DNS is a bad idea.
With respect, *my* question as the author of this document is simply whether
the specification provided is unambiguous and
On 2013-05-21, at 10:18, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote:
Perhaps Informational or Experimental would be a better label for this
document, then.
Informational was my original plan; I was persuaded by Some People that the
standards track was more appropriate. As I mentioned, my
--On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 10:04 -0400 Joe Abley
jab...@hopcount.ca wrote:
...
There has been very little review of the actual specification
in this thread to date.
RRType assignments are made based on expert review, not IETF
consensus, document published, or any other criteria. In this
joe,
i have read the draft. if published, i would prefer it as a proposed
standard as it does specify protocol data objects.
where you goin' with that gun in your hand?
i am not at all sanguine about the issues raised in the in sec cons. i
accept that NTRE038D may have asked that these be in
Not related to the draft as such (whose publication, incidentally, I
support):
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:23:03PM +0700, Randy Bush wrote:
1 - intro - do we have a standard way to refer to the dns specs as tuned
in 42 subsequent rfcs since 1035?
Alas, no. Some time ago, DNSEXT was
On 5/21/13 8:06 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
All I'm asking for is that, if you
want this as a Proposed Standard you carefully and convincingly
describe your design rationale. I want that both because it
seems generally appropriate in this case and because, if someone
comes along and wants to
On 05/21/2013 11:46 AM, joel jaeggli wrote:
With respect to the question of proposed standard. What changes if the
requested status is informational?
I think just get rid of the normative language - SHOULDs, MUSTs, etc.
Given that the RR types have already been assigned, documenting them
On 2013-05-21, at 11:50, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote:
On 05/21/2013 11:46 AM, joel jaeggli wrote:
With respect to the question of proposed standard. What changes if the
requested status is informational?
I think just get rid of the normative language - SHOULDs, MUSTs,
On 05/21/2013 11:52 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
On 2013-05-21, at 11:50, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote:
On 05/21/2013 11:46 AM, joel jaeggli wrote:
With respect to the question of proposed standard. What changes if the
requested status is informational?
I think just get rid of the
On 2013-05-21, at 11:56, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote:
On 05/21/2013 11:52 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
On 2013-05-21, at 11:50, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote:
On 05/21/2013 11:46 AM, joel jaeggli wrote:
With respect to the question of proposed standard. What changes
On 05/21/2013 11:57 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
On 2013-05-21, at 11:56, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote:
2119 language is intended to describe requirements of standards-track
documents.Informational documents cannot impose requirements.
Then I think we've just identified a reason
On 21 May 2013, at 02:44, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote:
p.s. I wonder if the problem you describe might at least partially be caused
by DNS proxies and interception proxies, including but not limited to those
incorporated in consumer-grade routers.
Those are already
Keith == Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com writes:
Keith 2119 language is intended to describe requirements of
Keith standards-track documents. Informational documents cannot
Keith impose requirements.
i think using 2119 language in informational documents is often
On May 21, 2013, at 8:56 AM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote:
2119 language is intended to describe requirements of standards-track
documents.
Can you support that statement with a reference to an RFC or an IESG statement
that supports it?
Informational documents cannot
On 2013-05-21, at 12:02, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote:
Actually I think that what we need is a BCP that says that DNS is not
intended, not designed, and SHOULD NOT be used for dissemination of any
information that is not deemed acceptable for widespread public distribution.
Hi Steve,
At 01:42 21-05-2013, Steve Crocker wrote:
I want to share two thoughts, one about the role of the IETF, ICANN
and other organizations within the Internet ecosystem, and one about Whois.
The great strength of the IETF is it's a forum for technical people
to come together, work out
Hi Olivier,
At 03:00 21-05-2013, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
And you do NOT need to be part of an At-Large Structure to participate
in the At-Large Working Groups. Membership is only needed for matters of
voting - and since we operate by consensus, that's a rare occurrence,
usually only
The scope of RFC 2119 is clearly standards-track documents. Documents that
aren't standards should not be worded as if they were; this is likely to cause
confusion about the status of the document.
Sent from my iPhone
On May 21, 2013, at 12:08 PM, Paul Hoffman paul.hoff...@vpnc.org wrote:
I agree with the modification points of the draft from Evangelos and
Weiming.
Regards,
Kentaro Ogawa
Original Message
Hi Ben,
Thank you very much for the review comments. Please see inline responses from
authors of the document on the comments.
Hi Sherpherd and AD,
we
On May 21, 2013, at 9:23 AM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote:
The scope of RFC 2119 is clearly standards-track documents.
I'll take that as a no. The scope is mentioned exactly once, in the
abstract but not in the body of the document.
Documents that aren't standards should
--On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 08:46 -0700 joel jaeggli
joe...@bogus.com wrote:
On 5/21/13 8:06 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
All I'm asking for is that, if you
want this as a Proposed Standard you carefully and
convincingly describe your design rationale. I want that
both because it seems
On 5/21/2013 8:50 AM, SM wrote:
I gather that everyone is aware that civil society has been somewhat
uncivil lately. That society has not made any significant negative
comments about the IETF.
Actually it has. Since he's such a long-active figure in those circles,
check out Milton
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 6:44 PM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.comwrote:
p.s. I wonder if the problem you describe might at least partially be
caused by DNS proxies and interception proxies, including but not limited
to those incorporated in consumer-grade routers.
Given the funny
(Changing Subject lines -- this is about a set of general
principles that might affect this document, not about the
document)
--On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 22:23 +0700 Randy Bush
ra...@psg.com wrote:
joe,
i have read the draft. if published, i would prefer it as a
proposed standard as it does
On 5/21/13 9:02 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
On 05/21/2013 11:57 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
On 2013-05-21, at 11:56, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote:
2119 language is intended to describe requirements of
standards-track documents.Informational documents cannot impose
requirements.
Then
On 05/21/2013 01:35 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:
On 5/21/13 9:02 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
On 05/21/2013 11:57 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
On 2013-05-21, at 11:56, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com
wrote:
2119 language is intended to describe requirements of
standards-track documents.
On 05/21/2013 12:30 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
Documents that aren't standards should not be worded as if they were; this is
likely to cause confusion about the status of the document.
I'm pretty sure that you as AD approved Informational RFCs that used 2119
language, and that this was discussed
Without responding in detail to John's note, I'll say that I agree
substantially with the notion that the fact that someone manages to get
a protocol name or number registered, should not be any kind of
justification for standardization of a document that describes use of
that name or number.
On 2013-05-21, at 15:08, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote:
Without responding in detail to John's note, I'll say that I agree
substantially with the notion that the fact that someone manages to get a
protocol name or number registered, should not be any kind of justification
On 05/21/2013 12:08 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
Without responding in detail to John's note, I'll say that I agree
substantially with the notion that the fact that someone manages to get
a protocol name or number registered, should not be any kind of
justification for standardization of a document
On May 21, 2013, at 1:32 PM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
(Changing Subject lines -- this is about a set of general
principles that might affect this document, not about the
document)
--On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 22:23 +0700 Randy Bush
ra...@psg.com wrote:
joe,
i have read
Hi Dave,
At 10:03 21-05-2013, Dave Crocker wrote:
Actually it has. Since he's such a long-active figure in those
circles, check out Milton Mueller's Ruling the Root, from 10 years
ago. He was quite critical and dismissive of the technical
community, including the IETF:
Thanks for the
Thanks for the response. Comments inline. I removed sections for which I have
no further comment.
Thanks!
Ben.
On May 16, 2013, at 10:19 PM, Wang,Weiming wmwang2...@hotmail.com wrote:
[...]
-- The draft mentions a couple of instances of tests that failed because of
an incorrect
Without responding in detail to John's note, I'll say that I agree
substantially with the notion that the fact that someone manages to get
a protocol name or number registered, should not be any kind of
justification for standardization of a document that describes use of
that name or
--On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 15:42 -0400 Olafur Gudmundsson
o...@ogud.com wrote:
...
John,
There are basically 3 different kinds of DNS RRtypes,
- types that affect the behavior of the DNS protocol and are
cached by resolvers,
- types that have DATA and are cached by resolvers
The IETF Nominating Committee (NomCom) is currently working to fill the
IAB mid-term vacancy created by the resignation of Spencer Dawkins. The
NomCom is requesting feedback from the community to help us fill this
position. However, the NomCom needs to move quickly to fill this
vacancy.
46 matches
Mail list logo
