headers
Randy Bush | 1 Jan 2003 12:00

list policy

namedroppers <at> ops.ietf.org is the mailing list for the ietf dnsext wg.  see
<http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/dnsext-charter.html> for the wg charter.
messages should be on topics appropriate to the dnsext wg, which are various
discussion of the dns protocols or administrivia of the wg itself.

calls for papers, announcements of events not directly relevant to the dns
protocols, etc. are not appropriate.  discussion of problems with particular
implementations, announcements of releases, sites' misconfigurations, etc.
should be done on mailing lists for the particular implementations.

posts are only accepted from subscribers.  with the massive amount of spam,
it is easy to miss and therefore delete posts by non-subscribers.  if you
wish to regularly post from an address that is not subscribed to this
mailing list, send a message to namedroppers-owner <at> ops.ietf.org and ask to
have your alternate address added to the list of addresses from which
submissions are automatically accepted.

there is a wg for dns operational practice, dnsop, whose charter can be
found at <http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/dnsop-charter.html>.

there is a mailing list for discussion of whose implementation is better,
and why someone else's is broken.  it is weenie-war <at> ops.ietf.org.  all
discussions of such nature should occur there or on /dev/null.  unlike the
namedroppers list, weenie-war <at> ops.ietf.org is not archived.

questions or concerns related to the acceptance or rejection of
specific messages to the namedroppers mailing list should first be
discussed with the wg chairs, with followup appeals using the normal
appeals process of rfc 2026 (i.e., follup with area directors, then
iesg, etc.).
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Edward Lewis | 2 Jan 2003 17:52

comments on DS-12, section 2.2.1.2

To the group - please scrutinize...In the spirit of "sending text":

#2.2.1.2 Special processing when child and an ancestor share server
#
#   When a child zone and a ancestor other than parent share an
#   authorative server, a DS aware server MUST answer with information
#   from child zone, as specified in section 2.2.1.1. This is to prevent
#   the server to be marked as lame for child.

Special rules are needed to permit DS RR aware servers to gracefully 
interact with older caches which otherwise might falsely label a 
server as lame because of the new placement of the DS RR set.

Such a situation might arise when a server is authoritative for both 
a zone and it's grandparent, but not the parent.  This sounds like an 
obscure example, but it is very real.  The root zone is currently 
served on 13 machines, and "root-servers.net." is served on 4 of the 
same 13, but "net." is served elsewhere.

When a server receives a query for (<QNAME>, DS, IN), the response 
MUST be determined from reading these rules in order:

1) If the server is authoritative for the zone that holds the DS RR 
set (i.e., the zone that delegates <QNAME> away, aka the "parent" 
zone), the response contains the DS RR set as an authoritative answer.

2) If the server is offering recursive service, the server performs 
the query itself (according to the rules for resolvers described 
below) and returns it's findings.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Olaf M. Kolkman | 3 Jan 2003 10:51
Picon
Favicon

Version 2 of wildcard optimization draft


Available in the ID repository soon, now at:

http://www.ripe.net/DISI/Notes/draft-olaf-dnsext-dnssec-wildcard-optimization-02.html

--------------------------------------------| Olaf M. Kolkman
                                            | www.ripe.net/disi

--
to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request <at> ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Olaf M. Kolkman | 3 Jan 2003 10:49
Picon
Favicon

Version 5 of keys signing key flag draft


Available in the ID repository soon, now at:

http://www.ripe.net/DISI/Notes/draft-ietf-dnsext-keyrr-key-signing-flag-05.html

--------------------------------------------| Olaf M. Kolkman
                                            | www.ripe.net/disi

--
to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request <at> ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Doug | 6 Jan 2003 01:04
Picon

Re: namedroppers, continued


Hello everyone,

It seems to me if the mail server administrators would make the decision to
require people that send emails from their servers to log into a valid
account on that server and use the same valid account on the server as a
return address it would negate the ability of a large percentage of the
spamers to send the spam anon. This would allow easier filtering of many of
the offending messages by domain. Additionally, the sending account field
and the reply to field should be equal and clients should be required to use
an email address that is associated with the account used to log into the
server in the first place. This will need to be implemented in the beginning
by administrators who run software capable of it, and it would be
implemented later as part of the email client and/or server software using
new software releases, patches, and individual customizations of existing
software. I know that there are many people who will scream and gnash their
teeth at this suggestion as it will force them to identify themselves to
anon mailing lists but I think it would be an acceptable compromise if we
could eliminate a major portion of the spam clogging our inboxes. Clients
need to be identified by ISP based email servers using their DNS and IP
address footprints and clients attempting to send email with improper
footprints should be disregarded (making it very difficult to send email
from the server if you truly are not a valid subscriber to the service, much
like many of the current news servers do). Then to deal with the anonymous
email servers out there (hotmail, yahoo, etc...) the operators of those
services should require clients logging into those accounts to send email
from a valid IP address with no unsecured proxy services running on them
(much like many IRC servers are doing) and transmit this IP information
along with the email being sent. This would allow for pinpoint
identification of the senders of spam using IP addresses MAC addresses and
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 6 comments |
headers
Doug | 6 Jan 2003 03:59
Picon

Fw: namedroppers, continued (flamed in less than an hour. figures)

I am wondering, is Daniel Senie normally rude to people she doesn't know or
is she just having a bad day? I sent a message out with some informal
suggestions in it that I thought might be helpful and she instantly jumps
down my throat with a nasty reply? It isn't like she or anyone can accuse me
of being a troll as I have only posted once or twice before. I am sorry I
didn't consult my english professor or a text for proper form before I sent
it (I really am), but I guess I thought it was an INFORMAL forum and I know
my email was intended as an informal thought process to be shared with the
group on an INFORMAL basis. Well anyway let me know what is going on with
this as I am confused now (I really don't understand the attitude). I have
included the entire text of her message below as well as my reply so
everyone might know what I am talking about.

Her message

----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Senie" <dts <at> senie.com>
To: "Doug" <Dougxx2 <at> carolina.rr.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2003 7:45 PM
Subject: Re: namedroppers, continued

> Paragraph breaks MIGHT have made your email readable. Instead, I suspect
> many folks will just hit delete.
>

My reply to her

Well, I am sorry Mrs. Senie, that you feel the need to flame me for throwing
out a few informal ideas in an informal open forum. Next time I will be sure
to consult my old english professor on the proper format.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Franck Martin | 6 Jan 2003 04:46

RE: namedroppers, continued (flamed in less than an hour. figure s)

Some people on the IETF as being technos lack people skills, that's why they
work with computers...

Do not worry about that... Each time I post a suggestion/comment I get
always a bunch of answer like: "This is real stupid" without explaining me
why...

If your ego can pass that, you will be admitted to the IETF confrerie and be
able to do the same to newbies...

Cheers.

Franck Martin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Doug [mailto:Dougxx2 <at> carolina.rr.com]
> Sent: Monday, 6 January 2003 2:59 
> To: ietf <at> ietf.org
> Cc: namedroppers <at> ops.ietf.org; iesg <at> ietf.org
> Subject: Fw: namedroppers, continued (flamed in less than an hour.
> figures)
> 
> 
> I am wondering, is Daniel Senie normally rude to people she 
> doesn't know or
> is she just having a bad day? I sent a message out with some informal
> suggestions in it that I thought might be helpful and she 
> instantly jumps
> down my throat with a nasty reply? It isn't like she or 
> anyone can accuse me
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 752 comments |
headers
Valdis.Kletnieks | 6 Jan 2003 05:35
Picon
Favicon

Re: namedroppers, continued (flamed in less than an hour. figure s)

On Mon, 06 Jan 2003 15:46:08 +1200, Franck Martin said:
> Some people on the IETF as being technos lack people skills, that's why they
> work with computers...

I usually explain it as "We're talking here about a collection of people who
are paid vast sums of money for their ability to carry on productive
conversations with inanimate objects".

It's usually easy to see the need for the cutting of slack at that point. ;)

> If your ego can pass that, you will be admitted to the IETF confrerie and be
> able to do the same to newbies...

Can anybody provide the original citation for the statement (similar to):

"The flame you are complaining about did not cast any aspersion on your
parentage or dietary preferences, and as such was mild by IETF standards"?
--

-- 
				Valdis Kletnieks
				Computer Systems Senior Engineer
				Virginia Tech
Permalink | Reply | 751 comments |
headers
Doug | 6 Jan 2003 06:59
Picon

Re: Fw: namedroppers, continued (flamed in less than an hour. figures)

Grenvill Armitage,

That is not the point and you know it. It is all about the nonsense
attitude.
Just ask yourself if it was all about making a polite suggestion then tell
me
why the word "might" was capitalized. Try reading what she wrote and
putting emphasis on that word. Oh yeah I am going to continue to repost
the nonsense as long as they are rude enough to keep sending it. The
purpose of it is so that everyone knows how they are treating people and
so that the other people that are being harassed by this incredibly rude
person know that it is not just them and that this person is an incredible
TROLL. What you are refering to as netiquette is an unspoken rule of
USENET not a mailing list as far as I know, so I don't believe it applies
here.
In addition, I would like to add I thought this was a forum for
professionals
not kids. Before you start claiming that this person is not being a TROLL
check out what the next response was. It isn't very professional or
condusive
to getting anything done in my opinion. Of course maybe the IETF isn't
interested in getting anything done or talking about any real ideas. What do
you think? I think that anyone that makes replies to messages in a public
forum
like THIS one which (unlike what usenet has turned into) is supposed to be
about solving problems and getting things done, needs to be revealed to the
group as a TROLL and a CHILD. I will personally be filtering the rest of the
email from her since I don't have the time nor the desire to deal with the
stupidity
and I know there are plenty of other people here with things to say that are
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
Randy Bush | 6 Jan 2003 15:08

non-approval

just so you know, as there is zero dns protocol content, i am not approving
a spate of non-subscriber flamage and name-calling about anti-spam that you
can read on the ietf mailing list if you wish.

randy

--
to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request <at> ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane