I'm Being Attacked by PRISONER.IANA.ORG!
draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-under-attack-help-help-06
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2011-05-16
|
06 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress |
2011-05-16
|
06 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2011-05-16
|
06 | Amy Vezza | State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent. |
2011-05-13
|
06 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2011-05-13
|
06 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2011-05-13
|
06 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2011-05-13
|
06 | Amy Vezza | Approval announcement text regenerated |
2011-05-13
|
06 | Amy Vezza | Ballot writeup text changed |
2011-05-12
|
06 | Ron Bonica | State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed. |
2011-04-30
|
06 | Sam Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Tero Kivinen. |
2011-04-29
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-under-attack-help-help-06.txt |
2011-04-28
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | Removed from agenda for telechat |
2011-04-28
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation. |
2011-04-28
|
06 | Amy Vezza | Ballot writeup text changed |
2011-04-28
|
06 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-04-28
|
06 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot comment] Thanks for writing this document, we do need documents like this to explain unexpected behaviors and the services provided by network infrastructure. However, … [Ballot comment] Thanks for writing this document, we do need documents like this to explain unexpected behaviors and the services provided by network infrastructure. However, I have one fundamental question. The document's explanation is built on the premise that responses from AS 112 will be unexpected. I have a hard time understanding how this can be the case. Either the user's network is disconnected from the Internet in its entirety, in which case there should not be DNS queries leaving the network. Or the network allows some traffic and some DNS queries to be made. What kind of intrusion detection system would cause an alarm over a properly formed response to a DNS query? |
2011-04-28
|
06 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot discuss] We need a document |
2011-04-28
|
06 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-04-27
|
06 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-04-27
|
06 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-04-26
|
06 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-04-26
|
06 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-04-25
|
06 | Peter Saint-Andre | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-04-25
|
06 | Ron Bonica | State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead. |
2011-04-25
|
06 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-04-25
|
06 | (System) | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call. |
2011-04-24
|
06 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot comment] Please see apps-review nits by S. Moonesamy. |
2011-04-24
|
06 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-04-24
|
06 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-04-22
|
06 | Amanda Baber | We understand that this document doesn't have any IANA actions. |
2011-04-21
|
06 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-04-21
|
06 | Ron Bonica | Ballot has been issued |
2011-04-19
|
06 | Wesley Eddy | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-04-14
|
06 | Sam Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tero Kivinen |
2011-04-14
|
06 | Sam Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tero Kivinen |
2011-04-11
|
06 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
2011-04-11
|
06 | Amy Vezza | State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested. The following Last Call Announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: … State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested. The following Last Call Announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Last Call: (I'm Being Attacked by PRISONER.IANA.ORG!) to Informational RFC The IESG has received a request from the Domain Name System Operations WG (dnsop) to consider the following document: - 'I'm Being Attacked by PRISONER.IANA.ORG!' as an Informational RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-04-25. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-under-attack-help-help/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-under-attack-help-help/ |
2011-04-11
|
06 | Ron Bonica | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2011-04-28 by Ron Bonica |
2011-04-11
|
06 | Ron Bonica | [Note]: 'Peter Koch (pk@DENIC.DE) is the document shepherd.' added by Ron Bonica |
2011-04-11
|
06 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ronald Bonica |
2011-04-11
|
06 | Ron Bonica | Ballot has been issued |
2011-04-11
|
06 | Ron Bonica | Created "Approve" ballot |
2011-04-11
|
06 | Ron Bonica | Last Call was requested |
2011-04-11
|
06 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2011-04-11
|
06 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2011-04-11
|
06 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2011-04-11
|
06 | Ron Bonica | State changed to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested. |
2011-04-11
|
06 | Ron Bonica | Last Call text changed |
2011-04-04
|
06 | Ron Bonica | Ballot writeup text changed |
2011-04-01
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he … (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? Peter Koch is the document shepherd and believes that this document is ready for publication. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? The document has been reviewed by a number of WG members who have expressed explicit support for the document. This document is for end user consumption and has been exposed to that target audience occasionally with positive feedback regarding its content and comprehensibility. There are no concerns as to the depth or breadth of reviews, but we are looking forward to the GenART review in particular. (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization or XML? No. (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been filed? If so, please include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on this issue. No. (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? Only a few WG members have participated in the discussions, but the consensus of those members has been overwhelmingly positive. (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is entered into the ID Tracker.) No. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? The nits checker warns about a number of IP addresses and domain names. However, these are meant literally and not as an example and thus are rightfully mentioned in the document. The checker also reports an outdated reference to an Internet Draft (draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones). The updated version of this document has been posted without any changes and a publication request will be sent after this one. (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the strategy for their completion? Are there normative references that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. Yes. There are references to two other documents that are being submitted to the IESG at the same time (draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-ops and draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones). (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? The IANA considerations section exists for explanatory purposes only and should remain in the document. The document itself does not make any requests of IANA. document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an automated checker? N/A (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction. Many sites connected to the Internet make use of IPv4 addresses which are not globally unique. Examples are the addresses designated in RFC1918 for private use within individual sites. Since queries sent to AS112 servers are usually not intentional, the replies received back from those servers are typically unexpected. Unexpected inbound traffic can trigger alarms on intrusion detection systems and firewalls, and operators of such systems often mistakenly believe that they are being attacked. This document provides background information and technical advice to those firewall operators. Working Group Summary Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? The working group was supportive of this and the associated AS112 operations document. Nothing particularly controversial came up. Document Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? This document is for end user consumption. |
2011-04-01
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | Draft added in state Publication Requested |
2011-04-01
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | [Note]: 'Peter Koch (pk@DENIC.DE) is the document shepherd.' added |
2011-03-10
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-under-attack-help-help-05.txt |
2011-01-30
|
06 | (System) | Document has expired |
2010-07-29
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-under-attack-help-help-04.txt |
2009-10-06
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-under-attack-help-help-03.txt |
2009-03-09
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-under-attack-help-help-02.txt |
2007-11-18
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-under-attack-help-help-01.txt |
2007-02-28
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-under-attack-help-help-00.txt |