From nobody Wed Apr 26 08:35:04 2023 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8589C151997 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2023 08:35:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.094 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.094 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OwwGWCsQYY5K for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2023 08:35:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-il1-x132.google.com (mail-il1-x132.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::132]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 453F8C151531 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2023 08:35:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-il1-x132.google.com with SMTP id e9e14a558f8ab-329673008e3so59216045ab.2 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2023 08:35:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1682523300; x=1685115300; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=dka6Uott72MesFMW5hNAQOL6jULV+Z/tkVb5l7bjEXM=; b=NfcsEPgXqZbHR590TxsHn+dB/GLPKL8/cyAr1iVzfbjhyq9uOAJV2k2BiDhBAOByZ0 jLZDLroXdCuGUihFXO4VzcuctVzhS0iwp56OXtKtfyEy7nrXBeK83Rs0WvsLnrNosYu5 mFYurOoeDgE9aDwYFTlHzPZoaEjYjjrIMCqQncq+tkG1M9/CNfhgJOuRdX7CswQD1+AL jGv6Ee0lC7J46hf1vPgLARwp64YcXmqy4Qn53szEojlAz5arHiR2N+e/R/PZ5uWty1iy JKzz5G1xBPAE4CyB9B/UlDDeuW6InG6jcSYjs2ZUXVYOa8K/c2LMbhcYoZ87v6O/9LL3 EgBQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1682523300; x=1685115300; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=dka6Uott72MesFMW5hNAQOL6jULV+Z/tkVb5l7bjEXM=; b=j0ZmQ2JzVwouWgZtHdHRLxyLe+Lm9pwZAteSM0GQ3VTK27ua8oJeGCNInF3MQsO/pO 9QxcwMCKRlwhpCni3VjRHPJwppmGWkkjayx01meeC2LAbElfmCU+TjIR15Aj8Jg23KSS kLGZzbSLZZa3fFfbiuHJtfjLdHDr9uefps5DuiZIYiv5BfXrH+qflCyiB2AbkxWDxoCC 4B34cczseqwhgs5PY0QXOwsCl/TQhyL4rWehlC8e4MOSvCRuT5FBiYVqtKdaPD2N/sb1 WP/WtCsBW6e137WVzTDDiHgdBY2BCCkHxl4ArlKDcnL+xBRegJ+5hkWG5yoLYJvk4G7M dcyA== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9cOu39NnDPEz2WdmVCzWi5WLfYxj3n6RPzACW6PVUss3uWVzb9B AT9sdTiJM5vATha3v+pFir7N61uDClo/2R6DTCU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350YrAyG/p8nht6hF4kwH1azfOUkpCHUq4Y6qFdHBobF8sagkFBEXFYS9DeoAc+c9gxXoe/yPlCEdB6h52cexrmw= X-Received: by 2002:a92:cc4e:0:b0:32b:529a:ece4 with SMTP id t14-20020a92cc4e000000b0032b529aece4mr10458552ilq.21.1682523300057; Wed, 26 Apr 2023 08:35:00 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <166433321065.7033.7906557321120388211@ietfa.amsl.com> <920A70B5-EF6F-463D-B62B-BC29C4C0210D@fl1ger.de> <9743fe5f-dc3b-1241-cd2d-96649939adf6@desec.io> In-Reply-To: From: Shumon Huque Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2023 11:34:48 -0400 Message-ID: To: Puneet Sood Cc: dnsop@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a058d605fa3efb7e" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional-07 vs. sibling glue X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2023 15:35:03 -0000 --000000000000a058d605fa3efb7e Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 7:04=E2=80=AFPM Puneet Sood wr= ote: > I wanted to respond to this thread earlier, so apologies in advance > for late posting and if this is a no-op at this point. Me getting > confused about the last call for this draft > (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional/) > and https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis/ > being combined didn't help either. > I'm answering very late too, my apologies ... > The draft does not contain any reference to the rfc8499bis I-D or to > RFC 8499. It would be helpful to have a reference. > That's a reasonable suggestion. We can add it. If it's not too late in the process: > Given the numbers presented upthread, at a minimum could we have one > sentence in section 2.3 Glue Cyclic Sibling Domain Name Server, > discouraging implementers from doing this? > As I've mentioned earlier, I'm okay with adding such a sentence. And perhaps you mean operators rather than implementers. I see that the chairs have pushed the button on 'Publication Requested' for this draft. Maybe you can broach this subject again during "IETF last call", and we'll see if we can get others to chime in then. (Personally, I'd also like to see some big TLD operators speaking up in agreement with this. Otherwise, we might just be writing something that will be ignored). Shumon. --000000000000a058d605fa3efb7e Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 7:04=E2=80=AFPM P= uneet Sood <puneets@google.com= > wrote:
I wanted to respond to this thread earlier, so apologies= in advance
for late posting and if this is a no-op at this point. Me getting
confused about the last call for this draft
(https://datatracker.ietf.org= /doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional/)
and https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/dr= aft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis/
being combined didn't help either.

= I'm answering very late too, my apologies ...
=C2=A0
The draft does not contain any reference to the rfc8499bis I-D or to
RFC 8499. It would be helpful to have a reference.
That's a reasonable suggestion. We can add it.

If it's not too late in the process:
Given the numbers presented upthread, at a minimum could we have one
sentence in section 2.3 Glue Cyclic Sibling Domain Name Server,
discouraging implementers from doing this?

<= div>As I've mentioned earlier, I'm okay with adding such a sentence= . And perhaps you mean operators rather than implementers.
I see that the chairs have pushed the button on 'Publicati= on Requested' for this draft.

Maybe you can br= oach this subject again during "IETF last call", and we'll se= e if we can get others to chime in then. (Personally, I'd also like to = see some big TLD operators speaking up in agreement with this. Otherwise, w= e might just be writing something that will be ignored).

=
Shumon.

--000000000000a058d605fa3efb7e--