headers
Olaf Kolkman | 1 Jan 2006 08:35
Picon
Favicon

DNSEXT list policy


- List Purpose

  namedroppers <at> ops.ietf.org is the mailing list for the IETF DNSEXT
  working group.  

  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.

- Specific items that are not not appropriate for posting

  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, pleas for help
  with specific implementations, etc.  should be done on mailing lists
  for the particular implementations.

  There is a working group for dns operational practice, DNSOP, whose
  charter can be found at
  <http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/dnsop-charter.html>. Items
  relevant to the DNSOP charter are to be discussed on the DNSOP
  mailinglist.

  Discussion about the quality of implementations is outside the scope
  of this list.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 | 4 Jan 2006 22:12

RE: DNSEXT WGLC: DS SHA-256

A new version of draft-eastlake-sha2 is not in the ID directory at
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-eastlake-sha2-01.txt.

Donald 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-namedroppers <at> ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-namedroppers <at> ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Eastlake III Donald-LDE008
Sent: Monday, December 26, 2005 11:50 PM
To: Wes Hardaker; namedroppers <at> ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: DNSEXT WGLC: DS SHA-256

draft-eastlake-sha2 is indeed a personal submission targeted for Informational, like RFC 3174.

I'm fine with the reference being Informative. The FIPS document is the normative specification of the algorithm.

I believe that it is, indeed, near completion and I will be uploaded an updated draft in a day or two.
Due to the problems with SHA-1, I believe it will be given some priority even though it is an individual submission.

Thanks,
Donald

-----Original Message-----
From: Wes Hardaker [mailto:hardaker <at> tislabs.com]
Sent: Monday, December 26, 2005 3:39 PM
To: Eastlake III Donald-LDE008
Cc: namedroppers <at> ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: DNSEXT WGLC: DS SHA-256

>>>>> On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 18:08:32 -0500, Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 <Donald.Eastlake <at> motorola.com> said:
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Edward Lewis | 6 Jan 2006 20:35
Favicon

Fwd: RFC 4255

For those who've been around long enough ;) - it's finally out of the queue!

According to the draft tracker, it's been in the queue since September 2003.

Woo-hoo!

>To: ietf-announce <at> ietf.org
>From: rfc-editor <at> rfc-editor.org
>Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2006 11:25:27 -0800
>Cc: ietf-ssh <at> netbsd.org, rfc-editor <at> rfc-editor.org
>Subject: RFC 4255 on Using DNS to Securely Publish Secure Shell (SSH) Key
>	Fingerprints
>
>A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
>
>
>         RFC 4255
>
>         Title:      Using DNS to Securely Publish Secure Shell (SSH)
>                     Key Fingerprints
>         Author(s):  J. Schlyter, W. Griffin
>         Status:     Standards Track
>         Date:       January 2006
>         Mailbox:    jakob <at> openssh.com, wgriffin <at> sparta.com
>         Pages:      9
>         Characters: 18399
>         Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso:    None
>
>         I-D Tag:    draft-ietf-secsh-dns-05.txt
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Internet-Drafts | 6 Jan 2006 21:50
Picon
Favicon

I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-online-signing-01.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the DNS Extensions Working Group of the IETF.

	Title		: Minimally Covering NSEC Records and DNSSEC On-line Signing
	Author(s)	: S. Weiler, J. Ihren
	Filename	: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-online-signing-01.txt
	Pages		: 11
	Date		: 2006-1-6
	
This document describes how to construct DNSSEC NSEC resource records
   that cover a smaller range of names than called for by RFC4034.  By
   generating and signing these records on demand, authoritative name
   servers can effectively stop the disclosure of zone contents
   otherwise made possible by walking the chain of NSEC records in a
   signed zone.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-online-signing-01.txt

To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to 
i-d-announce-request <at> ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message.  
You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce 
to change your subscription settings.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username
"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in,
type "cd internet-drafts" and then
	"get draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-online-signing-01.txt".

A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Internet-Drafts | 10 Jan 2006 00:50
Picon
Favicon

I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dnsext-wcard-clarify-10.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the DNS Extensions Working Group of the IETF.

	Title		: The Role of Wildcards in the Domain Name System
	Author(s)	: E. Lewis
	Filename	: draft-ietf-dnsext-wcard-clarify-10.txt
	Pages		: 19
	Date		: 2006-1-9
	
This is an update to the wildcard definition of RFC 1034.  The
      interaction with wildcards and CNAME is changed, an error
      condition removed, and the words defining some concepts central
      to wildcards are changed.  The overall goal is not to change
      wildcards, but to refine the definition of RFC 1034.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsext-wcard-clarify-10.txt

To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to 
i-d-announce-request <at> ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message.  
You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce 
to change your subscription settings.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username
"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in,
type "cd internet-drafts" and then
	"get draft-ietf-dnsext-wcard-clarify-10.txt".

A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 8 comments |
headers
Kevin Darcy | 10 Jan 2006 04:50
Picon

Re: draft-ietf-dnsext-wcard-clarify-10.txt

Some minor editorial-type suggestions, sorry I didn't bring up sooner:

1. Is the $ORIGIN in the Section 2.2.1 master-file example really 
necessary? All names in the example are fully-qualified anyway, so it 
seems superfluous.

2. Terminally-curious minds always want to know what the response to 
each example query is, but it's too taxing, and I think distracting, to 
noodle those out for the 5 "non-synthesized" examples in Section 2.2.1. 
It also seems a little inconsistent to give the responses for the 
"synthesized" examples, but not the "non-synthesized" ones. Could a 
brief description of the response be given for each of those examples, i.e.

          QNAME=host1.example., QTYPE=MX, QCLASS=IN
                the response will be "no error, but no data"
                *.example. synthesizes no wildcard because 
host1.example. exists

          QNAME=sub.*.example., QTYPE=MX, QCLASS=IN
                the response will be "no error, but no data"
                *.example. synthesizes no wildcard because sub.*.example. exists

          QNAME=_telnet._tcp.host1.example., QTYPE=SRV, QCLASS=IN
                the response will be "no such name"
                *.example. synthesizes no wildcard because _tcp.host1.example. exists (without data)

          QNAME=host.subdel.example., QTYPE=A, QCLASS=IN
                the response will either be from the child zone, or will be a referral to the child zone
                *.example. synthesizes no wildcard because subdel.example. exists (and is a zone cut)
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 7 comments |
headers
Edward Lewis | 10 Jan 2006 05:22
Favicon

Re: draft-ietf-dnsext-wcard-clarify-10.txt

At 22:50 -0500 1/9/06, Kevin Darcy wrote:
>Some minor editorial-type suggestions, sorry I didn't bring up sooner:
>
>1. Is the $ORIGIN in the Section 2.2.1 master-file example really 
>necessary? All names in the example are fully-qualified anyway, so 
>it seems superfluous.

In the spirit that "we've already gone past the IETF last call, not 
to mention being in the 4th calendar year of this" I would prefer to 
only make necessary changes at this point.

For one, the process of doing a simple document such as this has 
pushed my patience to the limit.  The submission process even whines 
if you neglect to put in the correct year for the copyright in the 
boilerplate.

Sorry for the rant.

I like to use the $ORIGIN just to set the context.  The reader knows 
it's a zone file coming up.  That's why it was there in the first 
place, I think (it's been there for so many years).

>2. Terminally-curious minds always want to know what the response to 
>each example query is, but it's too taxing, and I think distracting, 
>to noodle those out for the 5 "non-synthesized" examples in Section 
>2.2.1. It also seems a little inconsistent to give the responses for 
>the "synthesized" examples, but not the "non-synthesized" ones. 
>Could a brief description of the response be given for each of those 
>examples, i.e.
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 6 comments |
headers
Mark Andrews | 10 Jan 2006 05:41

Re: draft-ietf-dnsext-wcard-clarify-10.txt


> >4. Choose either "descendant[s]" or "descendent[s]" and be 
> >consistent with the usage, at least with respect to the noun forms 
> >of the word in Section 2.2.3. If "descendant[s]" is chosen, the 
> >adjectival form in Section 4.1 should probably also be changed to 
> >conform (so that a text search will find all occurrences).
> 
> Being only a native speaker and not formally educated in English 
> (past high school), what is the difference between descendant and 
> descendent?  Tell me which is correct and I'll use that.  (Where I 
> come from, the two are pronounced the same, so I probably didn't even 
> know they are different - especially if my spell checker accepts 
> both.)

	descendant (n) one decended from an ancestor; offspring.
	descendent (a) decending.
> 
> Please don't shoot the editor.
> 
> BTW, could items #3 and #4 just be done in the 48 hours?  I hate 
> dealing with the ID submission monster.
> 
> -- 
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Edward Lewis                                                +1-571-434-5468
> NeuStar
> 
> Inactionable unintelligence is bliss.
> 
> --
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Olaf M. Kolkman | 10 Jan 2006 09:59
Picon
Favicon

New version of draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-online-signing


draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-online-signing-01 has just been published.

The main difference between this and the previous document is that an  
applicability statement has been added. With this applicability  
statement it is thought that the underlying issue brought up during  
last call have been addressed.

Please respond before the end of this week (Friday 17:00 CET) if you  
have serious issues with this modification.

If there are no further comments the document will be published as is.

See http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dnsext/draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-online- 
signing/ for details.

--Olaf
   Co-Chair

-----------------------------------------------------------
Olaf M. Kolkman
NLnet Labs
http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/
Permalink | Reply | 11 comments |
headers
Olaf M. Kolkman | 10 Jan 2006 10:06
Picon
Favicon

Re: draft-ietf-dnsext-wcard-clarify-10.txt

>
> BTW, could items #3 and #4 just be done in the 48 hours?

Yes.

--Olaf
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |

Gmane