IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] A short note on the DNSOP agenda....

Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Thu, 19 March 2015 22:54 UTC

Return-Path: <marka@isc.org>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BE9A1A90EA for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 15:54:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id U1oxV4Nk2fmG for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 15:54:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ams1.isc.org (mx.ams1.isc.org [199.6.1.65]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B6B171A90E9 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 15:54:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (zmx1.isc.org [149.20.0.20]) by mx.ams1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3DDC1FCACD; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 22:54:12 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38D71160067; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 23:01:20 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (c211-30-175-41.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [211.30.175.41]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0684116004A; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 23:01:20 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rock.dv.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C610E2B8D7F0; Fri, 20 Mar 2015 09:54:09 +1100 (EST)
To: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
References: <55034644.6040204@gmail.com> <20150319082207.GA11609@nic.fr>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 19 Mar 2015 09:22:07 +0100." <20150319082207.GA11609@nic.fr>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 09:54:08 +1100
Message-Id: <20150319225409.C610E2B8D7F0@rock.dv.isc.org>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/z_L2a8iaujwqaQ5IvxTBN83Ekuc>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] A short note on the DNSOP agenda....
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 22:54:17 -0000

In message <20150319082207.GA11609@nic.fr>, Stephane Bortzmeyer writes:
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 08:19:16PM +0000,
>  Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> wrote 
>  a message of 16 lines which said:
> 
> > We've been hammering out the agenda, and we've got more requests than we
> > have time. We're focusing on working group items; heavy discussion items on
> > the mailing list; and other specific items we feel need pointing out.  We'll
> > have a draft one out this this weekend.
> 
> I did not see a formal announce but, anyway, here it is:
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/92/agenda/dnsop/
> 
> There is little timing, except for the first two items. I'm concerned
> by the number of "possible new work", specially when compared with the
> existing work (for instance, draft-ietf-dnsop-cookies,
> draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-client-subnet and draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis, all
> important works, seem to have no slot: does it mean everyone is OK as
> they are?)

draft-ietf-dnsop-cookies only really needs discussion about whether
to have the ERROR field or not.  I have tried several times to start
discussion on the list with no response from anyone.  The rest is
more editorial and clarity than protocol.

draft-andrews-dns-no-response-issue is dealing with what happens
when you attempt to deploy EDNS options like DNS COOKIES (and other
EDNS extensions) on all recursive queries.  Been there.  It is not
nice.  Server behaviour is not as clean as it should be and getting
fixes for that underway before DNS COOKIES is deployed is actually
important.  TLD operators can actually help alot here as they have
large lists of servers which can be checked.

> May be all discussions about RFC 6761 and its followups could be moved
> to a special session (because of the huge potential for lengthy
> discussions)?
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka@isc.org

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email