mirror of
https://github.com/ietf-wg-dnsop/wg-materials
synced 2025-08-22 02:09:16 +00:00
197 lines
7.2 KiB
Plaintext
197 lines
7.2 KiB
Plaintext
DNSOP @ IETF-97 2016/11/15 13:30 Grand Ballroom #1
|
||
|
||
Chairs Tim Wicinski and Suzanne Woolf start meeting at 13:31
|
||
Scribe: Olafur Gudmundsson and ....
|
||
Jabber Scribe: Dan York
|
||
|
||
<Note well> shown
|
||
Agenda bashing
|
||
RFC8020 took less than 1 year to publish
|
||
|
||
Concluded LC nsec-agressive may need second LC due to changes and edns-key-tag
|
||
Resolver-priming (after 10 years almost done)
|
||
|
||
Maintain-ds is now blocked for RFC7344 to be advanced to standards track.
|
||
|
||
refuse-any waiting on editors update
|
||
|
||
Special names problem statement sutld-ps adopted alt-tld in holding pattern
|
||
NO discussion on this topic today!!!!!!
|
||
Terry Mendelson threatinging a application for a TLD from Homenet may
|
||
require a Interim meeting
|
||
|
||
no-response-issue got big textual update, neeeds reviews soon as this is
|
||
scheduled for WGLC SOON!!
|
||
|
||
Candidates for adoption
|
||
draft-vixie-dns-rpz wants publication to document current practice
|
||
-biz can adopt new features
|
||
draft-wouters-sury-dnsop-algorithm-update
|
||
draft-hardaker-rfc5011-security-considerations needs feedback if
|
||
is of interest
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
13:45 Paul Hoffman, [dns-terminology-bis]
|
||
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis/), 10 min
|
||
did update late,
|
||
|
||
* Hoffman, DNS over HTTP BoF Happening
|
||
Location: Studio 7 at 18:45
|
||
Http people want exact format of DNS HTTP, as http people want to
|
||
have the ability to push DNS messages over HTTP.
|
||
there are multiple drafts in this space.
|
||
|
||
Multiple responses will be discussed on mailing list.
|
||
|
||
* Chairs, [draft-ietf-dnsop-no-response-issue]
|
||
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-no-response-issue/), 5 min
|
||
- Action: With rewritten redmediation, ready for WGLC?
|
||
|
||
|
||
## Current Working Group Business
|
||
|
||
13:50
|
||
* Cheshire, [draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal]
|
||
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal/), 5 min
|
||
|
||
Question 1: Ray Bellis advocates using abbreviated 4-byte header instead of
|
||
traditional 12-byte header.
|
||
Is this a good idea?
|
||
Some opinions on either side:
|
||
Wes Hardaker asks if the savings are worth the security of risk creating a
|
||
new parsing engine?
|
||
Ray Bellis says this is doable
|
||
SC does not care strongly about optimizations. Is asking for the opinion
|
||
of the group.
|
||
|
||
Question 2: Does every message need a response? Or can there be unilateral
|
||
one-way messages?
|
||
|
||
Question 3: Proposed terminology change, for clarity, from “idle timeout”
|
||
to “KeepAlive interval”?
|
||
|
||
## New Working Group Business
|
||
13:58
|
||
* Cheshire, [draft-cheshire-sudn-ipv4only-dot-arpa]
|
||
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cheshire-sudn-ipv4only-dot-arpa/), 5 min
|
||
This is special name, but it is not listed in the Special Names registry.
|
||
Usage is quite common on IPv6-only networks like cellphone operators have.
|
||
Andrew Sullivan: There was fight in the WG that defined this (behave) over
|
||
this topic, thus DNSOP should not adopt.
|
||
Making the TTLS longer will mitigate the effect of server outages.
|
||
Dan York: why do we think client will stop using this?
|
||
SC: We don't think clients will stop using this. They will continue to use
|
||
it, and we want it to work reliably.
|
||
Paul Hoffman: Put it in the registry
|
||
SC: Because the name is not listed as a special name, DNS64 gateways have
|
||
to do a pointless lookup
|
||
(that they already know the answer to) and that pointless lookup affects
|
||
performance and reliability.
|
||
Peter Koch: This is not needed and you may do more harm
|
||
Matt Pounsett: This is special name and the document should be published
|
||
Andrew Sullivan: On first reading of this draft I was convinced by the
|
||
points it makes.
|
||
Now I’m starting to have second thoughts again.
|
||
I encourage others to read the document and form their own opinions.
|
||
|
||
14:15
|
||
|
||
* Bortzmeyer, [draft-wallstrom-dnsop-dns-delegation-requirements]
|
||
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wallstrom-dnsop-dns-delegation-requirements/), 10 min
|
||
- Action: Worth adopting?
|
||
|
||
Jim Reed: what kind of status ==> BCP
|
||
discussion about Public Suffix list
|
||
George M: He strugles with delegation tests after delegations;
|
||
policing goes to bad place
|
||
Olafur: against adoption without major changes
|
||
John L: scared
|
||
Peter Koch: does post delegation checks hard to create list that
|
||
everyone can agree on; not describing eough may decrease the value
|
||
of the document, wants list of pure requirements
|
||
SW: non-response draft has been tuned down and how has tracktion
|
||
Ed Lewis: IETF should define the requirements for healthy delegations
|
||
not talk about how to/if enforce
|
||
David Conrad: agrees with Ed but invovkes policy
|
||
Jim Reid: agrees with Peter Koch for recommendations
|
||
Paul Hoffman: about TLS testing, there are multiple testers and they
|
||
all use differnt criteria's, the document is sloppy; Agrues against
|
||
restricting to hostnames.
|
||
"If you want delegation tests here is a list"
|
||
OndrejS: Things will be moving targets,
|
||
SW: will take question of the adoption is going to be taken to the list.
|
||
|
||
|
||
14:37
|
||
* Dickinson, [draft-dickinson-dnsop-dns-capture-format]
|
||
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dickinson-dnsop-dns-capture-format/), 10 min
|
||
- Action: More work on formats?
|
||
- IPR Issue
|
||
|
||
-- IPR disclosure WO
|
||
Shane Kerr: should adopt; performance?
|
||
SD: yes they have performance results, "remving data" seems to
|
||
help compression
|
||
GeorgeM: Defintily adopt this is appropritate. Observations: compression
|
||
of pcap is quite good.
|
||
SD: needs more meta data
|
||
SW: wg has not position on the IPR
|
||
Kaveh: Supports adoption strongly
|
||
Wes H: +1 on adoption
|
||
|
||
Hum for adotpion: strong for ; none against
|
||
|
||
|
||
14:53
|
||
* Fujiwara, [draft-fujiwara-dnsop-resolver-update]
|
||
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fujiwara-dnsop-resolver-update/), 15 min
|
||
- Action: Continue with work?
|
||
|
||
Olafur: strongly disagree there are no need for these changes
|
||
Onderj: He supports making the behavior more deterministic
|
||
Witold: This is a ugly hack, do not proceed
|
||
Ed Lews: NS will differ; wants
|
||
Peter Koch: small change to make sure delegation data is purged regularly
|
||
MarkA: only cache NS longer than the parent TTL even if they are
|
||
updated by shorter TTL in child
|
||
|
||
SW: more discussion needed before adoption
|
||
|
||
|
||
15:07
|
||
|
||
* Pounsett, [draft-pounsett-transferring-automated-dnssec-zones]
|
||
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-pounsett-transferring-automated-dnssec-zones/), 5 min
|
||
- Action: Worth pursuing, and IPR Issue
|
||
|
||
IPR issues; no jugdgemnt
|
||
needs more review and wants answers to questions on the mailing list
|
||
|
||
Kal Feher: as someone who does this regularly he supports addoption
|
||
|
||
15:14
|
||
* Yao, [draft-yao-dnsop-accompanying-questions]
|
||
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yao-dnsop-accompanying-questions/), 5 min
|
||
- Action: Requested adoption, is the draft and the WG ready?
|
||
Ondrej: Why is this needed ? this will be hard to use; sees no benefit
|
||
PaulH: wants more details and objects to a document w/o security
|
||
considerations
|
||
|
||
|
||
* Sivaraman, [draft-muks-dnsop-dns-catalog-zones]
|
||
(https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-muks-dnsop-dns-catalog-zones-01), 5 min
|
||
John D: what about superzones in PowerDNS
|
||
Konstanstin: PowerDNS can not delete
|
||
|
||
15:26
|
||
* York, [draft-york-dnsop-deploying-dnssec-crypto-algs]
|
||
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-york-dnsop-deploying-dnssec-crypto-algs/)
|
||
|
||
Paul, Dueane, Scott, ???
|
||
|
||
|
||
15:28 END of meeting
|
||
|
||
|