mirror of
https://github.com/ietf-wg-dnsop/wg-materials
synced 2025-08-22 10:17:20 +00:00
108 minutes, doc status updates
This commit is contained in:
Tim Wicinski
parent
f7245307b2
commit
0ee2facb7f
@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
|
||||
# DNSOP Chairs Status
|
||||
### Updated: 25 May 2020
|
||||
### Updated: 30 July 2020
|
||||
|
||||
Official document list: https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dnsop/documents/
|
||||
|
||||
@ -9,31 +9,27 @@ Questions, Concerns, etc: dnsop-chairs at ietf.org
|
||||
|
||||
## Done since Last Meeting
|
||||
|
||||
* ~~draft-ietf-dnsop-obsolete-dlv~~ **RFC8749**
|
||||
|
||||
* ~~draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-stale~~ **RFC8767**
|
||||
* ~~draft-ietf-dnsop-7706bis~~ **RFC8806**
|
||||
|
||||
### RFC Ed Queue
|
||||
|
||||
* draft-ietf-dnsop-7706bis
|
||||
|
||||
* draft-ietf-dnsop-no-response-issue
|
||||
|
||||
* draft-ietf-dnsop-multi-provider-dnssec
|
||||
|
||||
* draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error
|
||||
|
||||
* draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc2845bis
|
||||
|
||||
## IESG Queue
|
||||
|
||||
* draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc2845bis
|
||||
- Revised ID Needed
|
||||
* draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-zone-digest
|
||||
|
||||
## WGLC Approved
|
||||
|
||||
## In WG Last Call
|
||||
|
||||
* draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-zone-digest
|
||||
|
||||
## Upcoming WG Last Calls
|
||||
|
||||
* draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-tcp-requirements
|
||||
@ -42,8 +38,6 @@ Questions, Concerns, etc: dnsop-chairs at ietf.org
|
||||
|
||||
## Adopted by WG, Under Discussion
|
||||
|
||||
* draft-ietf-dnsop-aname
|
||||
|
||||
* draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc7816bis
|
||||
|
||||
* draft-ietf-dnsop-server-cookies
|
||||
@ -55,7 +49,6 @@ Questions, Concerns, etc: dnsop-chairs at ietf.org
|
||||
* draft-ietf-dnsop-iana-class-type-yang
|
||||
|
||||
* draft-ietf-dnsop-resolver-information
|
||||
- Moving to the ADD WG
|
||||
|
||||
* draft-fujiwara-dnsop-avoid-fragmentation
|
||||
|
||||
@ -63,34 +56,31 @@ Questions, Concerns, etc: dnsop-chairs at ietf.org
|
||||
|
||||
* draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-validator-requirements
|
||||
|
||||
* draft-pusateri-dnsop-update-timeout
|
||||
* draft-ietf-dnsop-update-timeout
|
||||
|
||||
* draft-toorop-dnsop-dns-catalog-zones
|
||||
|
||||
## WG Documents Held by WG
|
||||
* draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional
|
||||
|
||||
* draft-ietf-dnsop-ns-revalidation
|
||||
|
||||
* draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5933-bis
|
||||
|
||||
## Active Calls for Adoption
|
||||
|
||||
* draft-andrews-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional
|
||||
- Ends 1 June
|
||||
|
||||
* draft-huque-dnsop-ns-revalidation
|
||||
- Ends 8 June
|
||||
* draft-arends-private-use-tld
|
||||
- Ugh
|
||||
|
||||
## Candidates For Adoption
|
||||
|
||||
* draft-belyavskiy-rfc5933-bis
|
||||
- week of 1 June
|
||||
|
||||
* draft-arends-private-use-tld
|
||||
- Week of 8 June
|
||||
|
||||
## New Documents
|
||||
|
||||
* draft-tapril-ns2
|
||||
|
||||
* draft-toorop-dnsop-dns-zone-provisioning-yang
|
||||
|
||||
* draft-klh-dnsop-rfc8109bis
|
||||
|
||||
## Needs more Review
|
||||
|
||||
## Not At This Time
|
||||
|
||||
131
dnsop-ietf108/dnsop-ietf108-minutes.txt
Normal file
131
dnsop-ietf108/dnsop-ietf108-minutes.txt
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,131 @@
|
||||
DNS Operations (DNSOP) Working Group
|
||||
IETF 108
|
||||
29 July 2020
|
||||
Sessions 1 and 2
|
||||
Tim Wicinski, Suzanne Woolf, Benno Overeinder
|
||||
Minutes by Paul Hoffman
|
||||
Only things that are said at the mic line noted, not text from the slides
|
||||
|
||||
Administrivia
|
||||
Normal review of old work, preview of new work
|
||||
Is thinking of opening tup discussion of terminology
|
||||
|
||||
Fragmentation Avoidance in DNS, draft-ietf-dnsop-avoid-fragmentation
|
||||
Kazunori Fujiwara
|
||||
No comments came from the floor
|
||||
|
||||
Service binding and parameter specification via the DNS, draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https
|
||||
Ben Schwartz
|
||||
Ready for WG Last Call
|
||||
Benno: Are you coordinating interop testing, or should the chairs?
|
||||
Ben: Authors have not done any yet, want advice on how that should work
|
||||
Range of implementors that are known
|
||||
Benno: Will mobilize developers for WG Last Call
|
||||
Suzanne: Need adequate cross-area review
|
||||
Ben: Implications go up to the application area
|
||||
Tommy Pauly: Apple has an implementation of this
|
||||
Actively in beta, but not all features currently
|
||||
Some networks don't play well with new RRtypes
|
||||
Allison Mankin: Impressed with progress
|
||||
Hoping that the interop testing focuses on large DNS providers
|
||||
Salesforce will try to encourage among their vendors
|
||||
Benno: Interop before WG Last Call
|
||||
Suzanne: Want more WG review now, don't wait for WG Last Call
|
||||
|
||||
The DELEGATION_ONLY DNSKEY flag, draft-ietf-dnsop-delegation-only
|
||||
Paul Wouters
|
||||
No comments from the floor
|
||||
Benno: Would like to see more feedback from the WG
|
||||
PaulW: Got private feedback that there is interest
|
||||
|
||||
Parameterized Nameserver Delegation with NS2 and NS2T, draft-tapril-ns2
|
||||
Tim April
|
||||
PaulH: Need to coordinate across WGs
|
||||
Peter van Dijk: Has different draft in DPRIVE
|
||||
Ben: Also overlaps with "adaptive DNS" proposal in ADD
|
||||
Would like to see them all, maybe combined
|
||||
Sam Weiler: Have you thought of the processing rules if it is only in the parent?
|
||||
Tim: Authoritative in the child
|
||||
Jim Reid: Would be better to settle on one WG to deal with this
|
||||
Suzanne: There should be one place
|
||||
Puneet Sood: In Section 3.1, the EDNSO size is in conflict with current proposals
|
||||
Should try to keep to a minimum how much information goes into the records
|
||||
Ben: Doesn't need to take this down to one draft
|
||||
PaulH: Please look at these as use cases, not drafts
|
||||
Benno: Will coordinate with other WGs
|
||||
|
||||
Initializing a DNS Resolver with Priming Queries, draft-klh-dnsop-rfc8109bis
|
||||
Paul Hoffman
|
||||
No questions from the floor
|
||||
The chairs tested the hum tool
|
||||
Hum for adoption: strong
|
||||
Hum against adoption: weak
|
||||
Wes Hardaker: It is not clear if people who don't hum count as humming weakly
|
||||
|
||||
Revised IANA Considerations for DNSSEC, draft-hoffman-dnssec-iana-cons
|
||||
Paul Hoffman
|
||||
Sam: S/MIME and TLS are end-to-end, DNSSEC is in the middle
|
||||
IPsec is similar
|
||||
Viktor Dukhovni: Agree with Sam about importance of the middle
|
||||
Ben: Not a strong feeling
|
||||
TLS ciphersuites are larger spaces
|
||||
TLS client certificate types, also single octet, might also be relevant
|
||||
PGP has IETF review
|
||||
Fairly diverse range of practices
|
||||
Jim Reid: should adopt, make similar to other WGs
|
||||
Needs to be more flexible
|
||||
Should add mandatory or optional to implement
|
||||
Ondřej Surý: Camel issues
|
||||
Interop is more important in DNSSEC than in TLS world
|
||||
Clients and servers are upgraded more slowly
|
||||
Should be careful about relaxing the requirement
|
||||
Maybe want guidance from CFRG before we accept new algorithms
|
||||
Warren Kumari: standards track feels like endorsing
|
||||
Likes RFC required
|
||||
Still needs to go through a process
|
||||
Some TLS registries has notes in them
|
||||
Interop is important, which argues for why we should make the registry easier to get into
|
||||
Mike St Johns: point-to-multipoint system
|
||||
Could have different policies for TSIG
|
||||
How do we get/maintain interop?
|
||||
National crypto should be second signature on standard crypto
|
||||
Valery Smyslov: In favor of adoption to make more consistent
|
||||
Will not place high bar so national crypto can get code points without too much dificulty
|
||||
Daniel Kahn Gilmore: Using PGP and TLS as examples is bad because they have negotiation
|
||||
Want a minimum number of ciphersuites for DNS
|
||||
Benno: good discussion here and on mailing list
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
DNS Access Denied Error page, draft-reddy-dnsop-error-page
|
||||
Tirumaleswar Reddy
|
||||
Ben: This is not a good use of the HTTPS record type
|
||||
HTTPS is a way to reach the page
|
||||
Not compatible with DNSSEC if there is a validating stub answer
|
||||
Restrictions might not be implementable in web browsers
|
||||
Even then, not actually safe due to phishing
|
||||
Tiru: that's why it has to be a trusted DoH or DoT server
|
||||
Jim: Breaks the DNS protocol because the answer is not what the client asked
|
||||
Tiru: comes in the Additional section
|
||||
And only comes with extended error codes
|
||||
Jonathan Reed: Appreciates a draft that helps end users despite implementation concerns
|
||||
Wes Hardaker: This is not safe even if it is a trusted DoH or DoT
|
||||
Allows malicious ISPs who have MITMs
|
||||
Tiru: must be a trusted DoH or DoT
|
||||
Erid Orth: General support for solving this problem
|
||||
We can't trust this protocol as-is
|
||||
Bad idea to do anything for forging results
|
||||
Maybe put in EDNS0
|
||||
Warren: No hats, hate the idea of DNS filtering, so we need a way to make it as non-harmful as possible
|
||||
Needs signals from the browser to the users if something like this is done
|
||||
Needs input from browser vendors first
|
||||
Eric Rescorla: Doesn't think Firefox would be interested to this
|
||||
Wants to keep the interface to themselves, not to farm it out to resolvers
|
||||
Trusted resolvers are trusting with user data, not with the data
|
||||
Viktor: The Additional section is OK
|
||||
DoT resolver often makes unauthenticated requests and creates false sense of security
|
||||
|
||||
464XLAT/NAT64 Optimization, draft-ietf-v6ops-464xlat-optimization
|
||||
Jordi Palet Martinez
|
||||
Work in V6OPS WG that relates to DNSOP
|
||||
Please have the discussion in V6OPS, not in DNSOP
|
||||
|
||||
Loading…
x
Reference in New Issue
Block a user