IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Review of draft-livingood-dns-redirect-00

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Fri, 17 July 2009 16:05 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
X-Original-To: dnsop@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2EFC3A69B1 for <dnsop@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Jul 2009 09:05:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AMAh3P7j+DU7 for <dnsop@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Jul 2009 09:05:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from balder-227.proper.com (properopus-pt.tunnel.tserv3.fmt2.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f04:392::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3C213A6972 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Jul 2009 09:05:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.37.18.34] ([12.130.118.3]) (authenticated bits=0) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n6HG5RUU009872 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Jul 2009 09:05:33 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p06240827c6865173716e@[10.37.18.34]>
In-Reply-To: <20090716071553.GA5985@nic.fr>
References: <C67B83C4.E855%Jason_Livingood@cable.comcast.com> <20090710130527.GA17272@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <850A39016FA57A4887C0AA3C8085F949F02E00@KAEVS1.SIDN.local> <6C166401-DF49-48EA-A69B-C1EAA09EBF05@dnss.ec> <20090716071553.GA5985@nic.fr>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 09:05:26 -0700
To: dnsop@ietf.org
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Review of draft-livingood-dns-redirect-00
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 16:05:04 -0000

At 9:15 AM +0200 7/16/09, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 01:59:46PM +0200,
> Roy Arends <roy@dnss.ec> wrote
> a message of 33 lines which said:
>
>> SSAC's Report on DNS Response Modification
>> http://www.icann.org/en/committees/security/sac032.pdf
>
>Indeed. Good document. There is no need to discuss about
>draft-livingood-dns-lie, all the issues raised here in this WG were
>already in the SSAC document one year ago.
>
>I regret one thing with SSAC 032: they mix wildcards in the zone and
>lying resolvers. True, they have similarities but also differences
>(for instance, wildcards in a zone follow the DNS protocol, and
>therefore are compatible with DNSSEC) and I'm a bit tired of Slashdot
>discussions starting with "Comcast == Sitefinder".

I noticed this as well. Can someone from SSAC discuss here why that is the case? It is fairly relevant to this thread, given that a few people have wanted to see SAC032 discussed in the draft, but it doesn't seem relevant because of the difference.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status