Minutes IETF104: dnsop

The information below is for an old version of the document
Meeting Minutes Domain Name System Operations (dnsop) WG Snapshot
Title Minutes IETF104: dnsop
State Active
Other versions plain text
Last updated 2019-03-27

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