mirror of
https://github.com/ietf-wg-dnsop/wg-materials
synced 2025-08-22 02:09:16 +00:00
minutes
This commit is contained in:
Tim Wicinski
parent
4cf40abbb0
commit
da902e74f0
301
interim-2022-dnsop-02/interim-2022-dnsop-02-minutes.txt
Normal file
301
interim-2022-dnsop-02/interim-2022-dnsop-02-minutes.txt
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,301 @@
|
||||
# DNS Operations (DNSOP) Working Group
|
||||
## interim-2022-dnsop-02
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
### Chairs
|
||||
* Benno Overeinder [benno@nlnetlabs.nl](benno@nlnetlabs.nl)
|
||||
* Suzanne Woolf [suzworldwide@gmail.com](suzworldwide@gmail.com)
|
||||
* Tim Wicinski [tjw.ietf@gmail.com](tjw.ietf@gmail.com)
|
||||
|
||||
### IESG Overlord
|
||||
* Warren Kumari [warren@kumari.net](warren@kumari.net)
|
||||
|
||||
### Document Status
|
||||
* [Github](https://github.com/ietf-wg-dnsop/wg-materials/blob/main/dnsop-document-status.md)
|
||||
* [Datatracker](https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dnsop/documents/)
|
||||
* [Propose Slides](https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2022-dnsop-02/session/dnsop)
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
## Session interim-2022-dnsop-02
|
||||
|
||||
* Date: 26 September 2022
|
||||
* Time: 15:00-16:00 UTC
|
||||
* MeetEcho: [https://meetings.conf.meetecho.com/interim/?short=40f2f302-13a7-477b-b6fd-3d3d0754f05f](https://meetings.conf.meetecho.com/interim/?short=40f2f302-13a7-477b-b6fd-3d3d0754f05f)
|
||||
|
||||
* Jabber: [dnsop@jabber.ietf.org](dnsop@jabber.ietf.org)
|
||||
* Minutes: [https://notes.ietf.org/notes-ietf-interim-2022-dnsop-02-dnsop](https://notes.ietf.org/notes-ietf-interim-2022-dnsop-02-dnsop)
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
## Agenda
|
||||
|
||||
### Administrivia
|
||||
|
||||
* Agenda Bashing, Blue Sheets, etc, 5 min
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
### Current Working Group Business
|
||||
|
||||
* DNS Terminology
|
||||
- https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis/
|
||||
- Paul Hoffman and Kazunori Fujiwara, 55 min
|
||||
- Chairs Action:
|
||||
|
||||
Paul Hoffman(PH): Are we interept original document; or new definitions based on current DNS usage
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
### Definition of Bailiwick
|
||||
|
||||
* Number of proposals
|
||||
* Definition of in-bailiwick
|
||||
- in-domain
|
||||
- sibling domain
|
||||
- out-of-bailiwick
|
||||
|
||||
Warren Kumari(WK): should not fully drop a definition, but note no longer using.
|
||||
|
||||
PH: What should be saying on how its defined.
|
||||
|
||||
John Levine(JH): don't try to define now
|
||||
|
||||
PH: Has been used in the past, but we don't really know anymore
|
||||
|
||||
Jim Reid(JR): drop the term in-baliwick we must mention not to define it
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
* Drop the term “in-bailiwick”
|
||||
- Only use “in-domain” and “sibling domain”?
|
||||
|
||||
**Action** Pull the formal definition and write a historical definition
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
* Scope of use of bailiwick
|
||||
- Strict use with A/AAAA: “needed for DNS resolution”
|
||||
- Other RR types for DNSSEC, SVCB, …
|
||||
|
||||
PH: in-baliwick consensus call Old vs Current; Current means future
|
||||
|
||||
Kazunori Fujiwara: I think the terms *bailiwick, in-domain, sibling are necessary for glue is not optional draft.
|
||||
(in-domain glue is necessary, sibling glue is optional, out-of-bailiwick glue SHOULD be ignored)
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
### Definition of glue
|
||||
|
||||
* Definition of glue (on DNSOP mailing list, plus some small amendments)
|
||||
- “Glue is non-authoritative data in a zone that is transmitted in the additional section of a referral response on the basis that the data might be necessary for resolution to proceed at the referred name servers.”
|
||||
|
||||
* Necessary vs. useful discussion
|
||||
- too broad definition?
|
||||
- use “glue for in-domain/sibling domain name servers” as a term (from draft glue-is-not-optional)
|
||||
|
||||
PH: definition of glue has changed over time
|
||||
|
||||
Duane Wessels: This definition does not say which RRTypes are used, we may need a registry
|
||||
Narrow definition for now.
|
||||
|
||||
List of RRTypes
|
||||
|
||||
Defintion use necessary or useful
|
||||
|
||||
**action** wording on in-domain
|
||||
|
||||
### Definition of sibling glue
|
||||
|
||||
* Definition of sibling zone and glue
|
||||
|
||||
* Sibling zones: two zones whose delegations are in the same parent zone.
|
||||
|
||||
* Sibling glue: addresses of nameservers that are in a sibling zone.
|
||||
|
||||
* Necessary vs. useful interpretation
|
||||
- Same as for in-domain glue?
|
||||
|
||||
sibling zone
|
||||
sibling glue
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
Jim Reid 11:01
|
||||
Is anyone speaking or is my audio bust?
|
||||
|
||||
Eliot Lear 11:02
|
||||
I can hear you
|
||||
|
||||
Sean Turner 11:02
|
||||
I can hear.
|
||||
|
||||
Warren Kumari 11:02
|
||||
I can hear you
|
||||
|
||||
Suzanne Woolf 11:02
|
||||
Benno sounds fine
|
||||
|
||||
Tim Wicinski 11:02
|
||||
https://notes.ietf.org/notes-ietf-interim-2022-dnsop-02-dnsop?edit
|
||||
|
||||
Jim Reid 11:02
|
||||
Thanks Benno. I hear you OK.
|
||||
|
||||
Tim Wicinski 11:02
|
||||
I'll be taking notes today
|
||||
But primary today is putting together wording on baliwick
|
||||
|
||||
Kazunori Fujiwara 11:07
|
||||
draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional-06 uses "in-domain" and "sibling", However, it does not define these words and does not refer RFC8499...
|
||||
|
||||
Tim Wicinski 11:08
|
||||
Correct - what should come out of this discussion is terminology that the glue-is-not-optional draft will use.
|
||||
My opinion is that one goal of the terminology doc was to create current definitions
|
||||
but we want to hear from y'all
|
||||
I copied/pasted the 8499 text at the end of the HedgeDoc https://notes.ietf.org/notes-ietf-interim-2022-dnsop-02-dnsop?edit
|
||||
|
||||
Kazunori Fujiwara 11:15
|
||||
"in-bailiwick" is often used in non-IETF documents.
|
||||
|
||||
Warren Kumari 11:15
|
||||
"current definitions" + a note that the definition has changed over time so that people reading historic documents are not confused? Or jsut "this is what it means, be told" ?
|
||||
|
||||
Wes Hardaker 11:17
|
||||
it exists in way too many docs and logs to not define it
|
||||
|
||||
PE 11:17
|
||||
so you mean definition as more histrorical context than current best use of term?
|
||||
|
||||
Warren Kumari 11:17
|
||||
@PE : Yah, kinda. "I jsut read a document with this term, but had no idea what it means" help...
|
||||
|
||||
Tim Wicinski 11:20
|
||||
broken up on my end
|
||||
|
||||
Warren Kumari 11:20
|
||||
Not just at Benos emd. Audio dropped out for me too
|
||||
|
||||
John Levine 11:20
|
||||
Yes, and don not try to define it now
|
||||
|
||||
Roy Arends 11:21
|
||||
audio dropped here too
|
||||
|
||||
John Levine 11:21
|
||||
Sorry bad ipad audio
|
||||
Only as a historical use
|
||||
|
||||
Suzanne Woolf 11:22
|
||||
IMO it's okay to admit the term is widely used but ambiguous.
|
||||
|
||||
Paul Hoffman 11:24
|
||||
I like "historical term"
|
||||
|
||||
Duane Wessels 11:24
|
||||
agreed
|
||||
|
||||
Tim Wicinski 11:25
|
||||
yes
|
||||
|
||||
Kazunori Fujiwara 11:26
|
||||
For "in-domain" and "sibling", there was no clear definition of terminology before RFC 7719, but I thought it was necessary, so I borrowed terminology from Peter Koch's draft.
|
||||
|
||||
Jim Reid 11:27
|
||||
@ Wes, I think it's impractical to come up with definitions for how that term as been used in all those non-IETF docs. IMO a "we chose not do that" is the right way forward.
|
||||
|
||||
Tim Wicinski 11:29
|
||||
"Pull the formal definition of baliwick and write a historical definition"
|
||||
|
||||
Kazunori Fujiwara 11:29
|
||||
I think the terms *bailiwick, in-domain, sibling are necessary for glue is not optional draft.
|
||||
|
||||
Tim Wicinski 11:29
|
||||
I do agree
|
||||
|
||||
Duane Wessels 11:31
|
||||
no audio, I'll use chat
|
||||
is this slide really about use of glue?
|
||||
rather than use of in-bailiwick?
|
||||
|
||||
Warren Kumari 11:32
|
||||
I don't really care -- for my use case, I'm assuming people can solve their issue with: https://www.google.com/search?q=in+ballwick
|
||||
|
||||
Duane Wessels 11:32
|
||||
ok, thanks
|
||||
yes I think that would be best
|
||||
I'd rather not define the terms in the glue is not optional doc
|
||||
agreed
|
||||
|
||||
Tim Wicinski 11:35
|
||||
strict definition or more ambigious historical?
|
||||
|
||||
Duane Wessels 11:36
|
||||
sorry still no audio for me
|
||||
|
||||
Kazunori Fujiwara 11:39
|
||||
(in-domain glue is necessary, sibling glue is optional, out-of-bailiwick glue is unnecessary)
|
||||
|
||||
Tim Wicinski 11:39
|
||||
Thank You Kazunori !
|
||||
|
||||
Kazunori Fujiwara 11:40
|
||||
(out-of-bailiwick glue SHOULD be ignored, sorry)
|
||||
|
||||
Tim Wicinski 11:41
|
||||
I'm happy of not updating 2181
|
||||
|
||||
John Levine 11:42
|
||||
Agree with Paul, most useful to describe fuzzy existing practice
|
||||
then I hope say this is the preferred meaning
|
||||
|
||||
Kazunori Fujiwara 11:43
|
||||
RFC 2181 5.4.1 Ranking Data seems to target older nameserver implementations that merge all the data.
|
||||
|
||||
Tim Wicinski 11:48
|
||||
My feeling is in the future something like SVCB may become glue, we're not there yet
|
||||
|
||||
Kazunori Fujiwara 11:52
|
||||
Is the EXCHANGE A/AAAA that comes with the MX RR glue ?
|
||||
|
||||
John Levine 11:52
|
||||
Not as I've ever understood it
|
||||
|
||||
Duane Wessels 11:53
|
||||
@kazunori I'd say no because those could be done as a separate query
|
||||
|
||||
John Levine 11:54
|
||||
we had a big fight about sibling glue
|
||||
since it only works sometimes
|
||||
|
||||
Kazunori Fujiwara 11:56
|
||||
in-domain, sibling, out-of-bailiwick are exclusive.
|
||||
in-bailiwick = in-domain + sibling
|
||||
|
||||
Warren Kumari 11:58
|
||||
I dont.
|
||||
|
||||
Paul Hoffman 11:58
|
||||
Please: no
|
||||
|
||||
Peter Thomassen 11:58
|
||||
I'll have to leave
|
||||
|
||||
Warren Kumari 11:58
|
||||
I have another meeting now
|
||||
|
||||
Eliot Lear 11:58
|
||||
nah
|
||||
|
||||
Paul Hoffman 11:59
|
||||
It's not a short conversation
|
||||
|
||||
Eliot Lear 11:59
|
||||
^^^
|
||||
|
||||
Sean Turner 11:59
|
||||
until next time
|
||||
|
||||
Eliot Lear 11:59
|
||||
thanks chairs
|
||||
|
||||
Kazunori Fujiwara12:00
|
||||
Thank you.
|
||||
|
||||
Suzanne Woolf12:00
|
||||
Thanks all, this was a good session!
|
||||
|
||||
Loading…
x
Reference in New Issue
Block a user