Re: [DNSOP] summary of WG current status

Patrik Fältström <> Fri, 21 February 2014 20:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27E0D1A026C for <>; Fri, 21 Feb 2014 12:07:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.799
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M_ulvyFhDc2R for <>; Fri, 21 Feb 2014 12:07:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a02:80:3ffe::176]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53EE11A0267 for <>; Fri, 21 Feb 2014 12:07:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ix-2.local ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B25232270D; Fri, 21 Feb 2014 21:06:58 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 21:06:58 +0100
From: =?windows-1252?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Suzanne Woolf <>, " WG" <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="8qFP260E8vIrhc9grpStc7LjSWUUiOjwc"
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] summary of WG current status
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 20:07:06 -0000

WOW! This could be a week of meetings...

I guess it is not time to fold yet... :-P


On 2014-02-21 18:17, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
> Dear Colleagues,
> As we look towards the meeting in London, we have several items in
> progress, which we've organized here from the most specific and
> administratively simple tasks to the broadest discussion topics.
> Not everything called out here is on the London agenda, but we’ve tried
> to round up everything that’s in progress as work for the WG, formally
> or (in a few cases) informally. We expect to send this out periodically,
> not least so people have a chance to call us on it if we drop stuff.
> thanks,
> Your Chairs
> From our existing charter:
> 1. RESPSIZE draft
> (
>     This item has been in our charter for a very long time, and was at
> one time considered almost ready for publication but stalled there.
> There's been recent interest in dusting it off and getting it shipped,
> and with the help of the previous authors and a new volunteer, a new
> version has been published. It’s been suggested  we might want to add
> some more material on DNSSEC and EDNS0, since the previous version only
> dealt extensively with the impact on referral size of adding AAAA
> records and the bulk of the document was written before the root was
> signed or ICANN's registry contracts were written to require DNSSEC for
> new gTLDs.
> Agenda in London: flag open items, get reviewers, get a timeline for
> finishing
> 2. PRIMING draft
> (
>     We’ve also got a new rev of this draft so we can resolve the open
> questions and get this published also.  
> Agenda in London: flag open items, get reviewers, get a timeline for
> finishing
> 3. AS112 operations:
> item)
>     Some additional “bits and pieces” re: AS112 operations. We need
> reviewers to move forward with the DNAME one, and for 6304bis if we want
> to adopt it.
>     Agenda in London: determine momentum for getting these reviewed,
> revised, and published. If not they will be dropped.
> 4. CDS and related: what are we doing about the topic of DNSSEC in-band
> key maintenance? This has previously been somewhat contentious and seems
> to have stalled without resolution. We now have current versions of two
> drafts and would like to make progress on resolving differences.
> 5. to reserved list
> Stalled in WGLC on an administrative issue of overlapping IANA
> registries. Chairs will review discussion and propose a way forward
> soon; no WG action required
> Passive DNS data format:
> needs review, call for adoption
> Authority server placement: no i-d yet; agenda time requested, needs review
> FOR DISCUSSION, including possible charter revision:
> 1. Privacy drafts
>     There are *at least* four i-ds and a BOF in London specifically for
> discussion of privacy and confidentiality with regards to the protocol
> and operations of DNS:
>         Stephane Bortzmeyer's problem statement draft
> ( is
> reasonably on-charter for us.
>         Stephane's solutions
> draft
>         Peter Koch's draft on information leakage in the DNS
> (
>         Wouter Wijngaards' draft on opportunistic encryption in the DNS
> (
> (plus a few other documents)
> We need to decide what we think a useful contribution on this broad
> topic would be for DNSOP. Stephane's problem statement draft seems
> in-scope and we'd like to call for adoption. Protocol changes as
> described in two of the drafts probably need a new WG. In between, this
> topic provides an opportunity for us to consider reasonable updates to
> our charter given evident demand from the community to examine DNS in
> light of current privacy concerns. 
> ** This is a major item for the agenda in London; please come prepared
> to discuss **
> 2. Special names
>     There are two current drafts requesting additions to the Special Use
> Names registry as per RFC
> 6761,
> The process described in RFC 6761 calls for "IESG action," and the IESG
> has asked for DNSOP input, including that we consider adopting these
> drafts as WG items. We have already had some discussion on these drafts,
> and the current process, based on RFC 6761, makes whether to add these
> names to the registry the IESG’s decision. We will continue to discuss
> these drafts on the mailing list and provide our advice/observations to
> the IESG.
>     There is some interest separately in the broader architectural
> concerns around “what should we do with requests/needs for namespaces
> that look like DNS names, but aren’t?” As it looks like these uses of
> DNS-like namespaces by non-DNS protocols will continue to evolve, and
> the RFC 6761 process already seems problematic, we need to consider
> whether there’s work to be done in fine-tuning the IETF’s response to
> these requests from protocol developers who are trying to do the right
> thing, don’t want to simply appropriate namespaces a priori, but are not
> actually trying to do DNS protocol or operations and simply want to
> avoid incompatibility.
> DNSEXT discussions
> - tcp keep-alives
> - tcp query-chaining
> - DNS cookies
> - TLS for DNS
> DNS Cookies & TLS for DNS
> Donald Eastlake has generated a new version of the DNS Cookies draft,
> which incorporated many comments.  Several other contributors have also
> written a new draft on the use of TLS for DNS over TCP. While these are
> out of scope, we feel with the privacy and confidentiality work
> swirling,  there seems to be room to at least have the discussion.
> New charter
> DNSOP has been around for awhile, without a recent charter revision even
> as topics including privacy, root zone expansion, and changes in the
> operational environment have become increasingly important. Our Esteemed
> AD has been very open with us pulling things in for discussion,
> especially if there are operational impacts from such things.  We're
> working on a new charter that would include a couple of specific items
> the WG has already adopted or considered, and a shift in scope to allow
> DNSOP to provide a home for problem statements related to DNS in much
> the way v6ops does for the IPv6-related groups and issues. Your
> suggestions are appreciated.
> ** This is a major item for the agenda in London; please come prepared
> to discuss **
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list