Minutes IETF104: dnsop

Meeting Minutes Domain Name System Operations (dnsop) WG
Title Minutes IETF104: dnsop
State Active
Other versions plain text
Last updated 2019-03-29

Meeting Minutes

IETF 104
26 March 2019, 13:50-15:50 local time
Chairs: Tim Wicinski, Suzanne Woolf, Benno Overeinder
Minutes: Paul Hoffman
Text from slides not reproduced here

Session 1

    See slides
    ANAME authors may be reducing scope of document

DNS-SD Document Updates; Stewart Chesire
    Will take more things to the WG list, wants more review from DNSOP folks

IETF Hackathon: Everything DNS; Sara Dickinson
    Paul: Encourages people to come because it helps you when you are doing code
    Suzanne: Because the DNS lives in the real world, the hackathon is
    especially important

draft-ietf-dnsop-multi-provider-dnssec; Pallavi Aras and Shumon Huque
    Shumon: Not ready for WG last call because there is a bunch of pending
    issues Jan Vcelak: Definitely looking for more input Shumon: Would like new
    draft to be ready for next meeting Willem Toorop: What are the colors of
    the keys?
        Blue is private key
    John Reed: Is this intended for steady-state, or transitioning?
        Shumon: Was for steady-state, but now moving to transitioning
        John: Will this help get rid of 6761 and non-cooperating operators
    Christian Grothoff: Have you thought about threshold signatures
        Shumon: Will do
    Tim: REGEXT is looking at registry handoff, also a side meeting on registry
    lock Mike StJohns: What if different providers are signing different parts?
        Shumon: Each provider is signing the whole zone
        Pallavi: Each signer needs to do NSEC or NSEC3, but not different
    Shumon: What about response size? Only changes DNSKEY records
    Petr Špaček: Does this affect aggressive NSEC?
        Jan: yes

draft-ietf-dnsop-7706bis; Paul Hoffman
    Wes Hardaker: Why is the root special?
        Paul: Root is not special
    Wes: Seems useful to do pre-caching for any zone.
    Paul: Examples in Appendix showing how to do for other zones
    Wes: Root Zone List not correct
        Paul:  Please send email
    Andreas Schulze:  Anyone can try and see if it works.
        Paul: Should be for zone administrators who want this served this way.
    Matt Pounsett:  Listing non-ICANN or ICANN projects, side projects come and
    go. Perhaps discuss these projects are ephemeral.
        Paul: Off-boarding is really important for this.
    Chairs: HyperLocal date?
        Paul: I don't predict well
    Paul: Knowing when a service stops working is really important

draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-tcp-requirements; Duane Wessels
    Slides were originally for tcpm WG (TCP Maintenance)
    Sara: There are also privacy concerns with TFO
        Yes to promoting TLS
        Do you want to talk about DSO? Will send text
    Wes: 7706 code snippets
    Petr: From flag day, operators said this was not Internet Standard
        Suzanne: Chairs will follow up on that
    Suzanne: Have people tested this?
        Sara: DNS Privacy web site has some data on that for open source

draft-livingood-dnsop-dont-switch-resolvers; Jason Livingood
draft-livingood-dnsop-auth-dnssec-mistakes; Jason Livingood
    George Michaelson: When the signalling mechanism is SERVFAIL, how do I know?
        Have to have extended errors
    Tim: Can they be combined into one?
        Jason: Yes
    Jim Reid: Supports
        Validating resolvers that will soft-fail: needs wording
    Matthijs Mekking: One document
    Ralf Weber: Could be split into different sections
    Warren Kumari: Who is the actual audience?
        Jason: Lots of people outside the IETF read RFCs
    Stéphane Bortzmeyer: Lots of people who talk to users read these documents
    Tim: Audience is network operations people who aren't obsessed with DNS
    like we are Matt Pounsett: Should work on it. Peter Koch: RFCs don't reach
    the right audience
        Paul: IETF Blog helps
    Joe Abley: Old RFCs get use
    Petr: Supports draft
    Dan York: Likes these kind of drafts
        We can point to RFCs
    Tim: We can bring this to NANOG
    Suz: Customer Support folks at operator shops care about these
    Dan: You want a small number of best practices documents
    Matthijs: Would prefer one document because they are intertwined
    Benno: Go for one document, then call on mailing list

draft-lhotka-dnsop-iana-class-type-yang; Ladislav Lhotka and Petr Špaček
    Andrew Sullivan: Has opinions on IANA registries
        Do not get out of sync with IANA registry
        You will run into things that are deprecated
        Everything that is marked as "obsolete" is treated as "deprecated"
            You don't have to care about these
    Draft will be reviewed by YANG doctors
    Wes: Did you consider RFC 6168?
        Ladislav: This can be a difficult process
            This is just types that can be used in other places
        Wes: Think about TSIG keys

Session 2
"New work day"

draft-moura-dnsop-authoritative-recommendations; Giovane Moura
    George: R2: Disagrees that the study is representative because uses RIPE
    Atlas Wes: Asks whether we should bring to the WG, or remove some
    recommendations Lars-Johan Liman: What status do you want?
        Giovane: Informational, not BCP
    Liman: Suggestions or things to think about; not recommendations
        Customers will insist that "we much have this" and lose diversity
        Giovane: Reproducing the recommendations
        Liman: Not buying into that; needs to be observations
        Wes: Will think about it
    Stéphane: Thought it was good research
        Concern that this is only for big authoritative servers, not even
        medium-sized zone Wants title changed to make the scope narrow Giovane:
        Will change
    Peter van Dijk: Question about R5
    Joe: Has read four of these papers
        Really about anycast, not about DNS
        Quite nuanced and subtle observations that are in context, but this
        document makes broad claims Don't think it is sensible to expand the
        papers Would prefer that this was a "literature review" These are too
        broad and across the board
    Peter Koch: 15 years ago, Lixia had a draft on TTLs
        WG could not agree on this
        Drop R5 from the document
        Open to making papers more accessible, but not to be recommendations or
        observations Wants more diversity of papers
    Benno: Wants more discussion on mailing list

draft-sury-toorop-dns-cookies-algorithms; Willem
    Paul: Why SipHash?
    Ondřej Surý: Already used everywhere even though new
    Peter Lexis: License is public domain
    Benno: Will send out call for adoption, feels positive vibes
    Warren: Make sure security groups and CFRG know

draft-stw-6761ext; Suzanne Woolf
    Warren: Would be nice if we could avoid the .onion discussion again
        Wants to work on this so we only do it once
    Jim: Good to not use DNSOP in the review, but needs a review process
        Expert review panel?
        Would be good to have some visibility
        Need to think about liason with ICANN
            Worried about double-dipping or gaming of ICANN process
            Doesn't want people coming to IETF to circumvent ICANN process
    Paul Wouters: Froze 6761 with selectively allowing others
        If we do not update 6761, we must move it to historic
        Suzanne: Want the process to not look arbitrary
    Christian Grothoff: Has proposal to overwrite root zone
        Has done usabilty studies to show that this works
    Wes: How to have input from ICANN is important
        Note to chairs: don't let this drop, critical to solve
    PeterK: Missing a recommendation: makes the name special, doesn't allocate
    the name
        If you have a name, you can make it special
        Doubts that DNSOP is the right venue, but doesn't have a better one
        IETF and ICANN have tried hard to coordinate
        Example of corp/home/mail
    Stéphane: Doesn't solve the real problem
        When people from outside to reserve TLDs
        We can talk to ICANN
        Draft doesn't solve the problem: it gives advice to people who already
        know about it
    Suzanne: "single label names" or not
        Are people asking for the name to be delegated in the DNS with specific
        behavior, or that the name be instantiated Distinct cases Other
        approaches are welcome Warren will decide how to move forward
    Warren: Would the WG please consider working on it?

draft-brotman-rdbd; Stephen Farrell and Alex Brotman
    Brian Dickinson: Explicit declaration of non-mapping vs. missing
    declaration of mapping
        Defensive records saying that there are no other zones
    Alexander Mayrhofer: How can this work without semantics?
        There are other mechanisms, such as meta-tags
        Stephen: Trying to not do semantics
        Alexander: Makes this useless
    Jim: Not sure the DNS is the place for this kind of semantics
        How is this different than DNAME?
    Joe: Thinks the cesspool is fine
        The current mechanisms are terrible and inaccurate
        What incentive does the domain name holder to have to publish these?
        Alex: When people want to look legitimate
    Matt: Hard time seeing use cases
        Boils down to interpretation by anti-abuse researchers
        What will the absence of records mean? Could be messy
        More semantics
    John Reed: Which direction should it be?
        Lists can get real big real fast
        How to make sure it's gone on both ends when the relationship ends
    Murray Kucherawy: Need to address unidirectional cases may be attacks
    Sam Weiler:
        First party sets proposals
        Signing is crazy
    Warren: Not sure if it should be in the DNS
        Would like to disavow: more useful
    Dan York: Thanks for bringing it here
        Have you spoken other vendors who might implement this?
        What prevents less ethical people from claiming
    Murray: Has application in DBOUND

ANAME discussion; Matthijs Mekking
    Wants discussion to be about current draft, or maybe a reduced scope
    Willem: Likes current draft, wants to implement it
    Brian: Issues that authoritatives must act in a way that resolvers used to
        Won't scale, is an existential threat to authoritative servers
        Interferes with geo-ip that they have implemented
        Recursives scale by queries, authoritatives scale by zone
        Changes business model in a bad way
        Matthijs: New document would need to deal with authoritative aspects
            Similar to DNSSEC for geoip
    Shane Kerr: People have implemented things just like this, it scales
    Matt: This sort of thing does work
        Had to do ramp-up and back-off strategies
        Did simulations up to 10m zones
    Petr: Two documents: how to do zone transfer, rest
        Allow people to use multiple providers
    Olli Vannoja: Doesn't think it breaks DNSSEC
    Brian: Being offered by vertical integration suppliers, not authoritatives
    Matt: No
    Benno: Easier for two documents, but wants to hear more on the list
    Tim: Brian is incorrect
        One document is OK
        This scales, everybody does it
    Tony Finch: Would like more comments on the list from people who are
    already do this