Minutes IETF105: dnsop
minutes-105-dnsop-00

Meeting Minutes Domain Name System Operations (dnsop) WG
Title Minutes IETF105: dnsop
State Active
Other versions plain text
Last updated 2019-07-27

Meeting Minutes
minutes-105-dnsop

   DNS Operations (DNSOP) Working Group
Suzanne Woolf, Tim Wicinski, Benno Overeinder
IETF 105
Minutes taken by Paul Hoffman and Tim Wicinski
Notes do not include text from slides
Slides can be found at

## Session I, 2019-07-22, 1810

Administrivia
        See the chair slides at
        Agenda bashing, blue sheets, etc
        Other things happening this week
        draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld
                Andrew Sullivan: Why is this being sent to GenArea
                        Maybe will be a loop with DNSOP
                Jared Mauch: Maybe just drop this
                Paul Wouters: We froze other people out of this, it feels weird
                to start it here
                        Suzanne: We told people we needed to do more work, and
                        we did
                Wes Hardaker: Good question is "is this needed"?
                        People outside show frustration with no ability at all
                Warren Kumari: Fine if this dies, but want to know for sure
                        Could come back to DNSOP
                Paul Vixie: Something like this is kinda needed
                        Like RFC 1918 was kinda neede
                        If we do nothing, should do negative RFC saying why
                Tim: We will talk to the authors
        Lots of review of current document status

Hackathon 105 results, Willem Toorop

        Lots on DNS privacy
        Other projects too

draft-sury-toorop-dnsop-server-cookies, Willem Toorop

        About interoperable cookes across vendors
        Testing at this Hackathon turned up issues with the draft

draft-ietf-dnsop-7706bis, Paul Hoffman

        Use Cases need to be updated, and still TODOs in document.
        Another Version by Sep 1, then WGLC
        Puneep: Restriction root server accessible locally, but not good for
        scale. Wording so it doesn't have to be on same machine, but not
        accessible. Paul Hofmann: "explicit use cases" discussion Giovane: If
        run locally what NS TTL do you use - child zone or root zone? Paul
        Hofmann: We do not say Wes Hardaker:  Local copy of the root only
        answers authoratively as if it is root server. When returning records
        for TLDs, resolvers should look at child server for which TTL to use.
        Paul Hofmann: This is no more authorative than asking a root server.

draft-hoffman-dns-terminology-ter, Paul Hoffman

        George Michaelson: Ship the dictionary. It will never be finished.
        Paul Wouters: Does not like Do53.
        Brian Dickson: ADD should reflect all transports
        Giovane: 53 - UDP only? No - TCP/UDP
        Jim Reed: let's get a document out the door.
        Stephane Bortzmeyer: Last one only not defined in RFC.

## Session II, 2019-07-23, 1000

Chairs introduction

        ANAME and HTTPSSVC have overlapping use cases, should both be considered
        The "extra work" for each is done in different spaces

draft-ietf-dnsop-aname, Matthijs Mekking

        Ben Schwartz: We want both proposals standardized
                Could still simplify ANAME, pushing some of the complex parts
                to HTTPSSVC
        Evan Hunt: Don't go to last call quickly
                Did not expect browser update of other solutions but now sees
                HTTPSSVC Carry on as if they won't WG Last Call is premature
                until we know
        Tim: Likes HTTPSSVC
                ANAME wasn't trying to solve the "web problem", but instead the
                CNAME problem Deals with containers all day as an operator Sees
                no zones with A and AAAA, but instead doing crazy zone cuts or
                AWS kruft ANAME could be simpler
        Brian Dickson: Also likes HTTPSSVC
                For the API use cases, maybe go to SRV instead of ANAME
        Petr Špaček: ANAME sections 5 and 6 need more work
                Matthijs: Not wanting to have ANAME in WG last call
        David Lawrence: Didn't understand Tim's points
                Tim: Seeing lots of stuff with "service endpoints"
                        Backend servers talking to services and others
                        In container world, you don't get an A record until the
                        very end of the stream
                Put the use cases in the doc
        Erik Nygren: Work with the providers before finishing
                Might be going to an IP/port pair
        Matthijs: Don't move forward yet if the use cases aren't clear
        Benno: maybe have a interim to deal with new use cases

draft-nygren-httpbis-httpssvc, Erik Nygren

        Warren Kumari: How big do these things end up? Could be DoS fodder
                Erik: Should have considerations on what to put in
                        alt-svc could be split off to separate draft
                        Not clear if browsers will do this on port Do53 or DOH
        Olafur Gudmundsson: This has subtyping, which is bad
                Get rid them, just have one format that is extensible in the
                string at the end SNI key in the multi-cloud will require
                online generation of the records
        Evan Hunt: Has a better pronunciation
                Implemented on browser side yet?
                        Erik: Not yet
                Making it more generic, not specific to HTTPS?
                        Erik: Worried that the RRset will get really big
        Lorenzo Colitti: Can we design it for more than the browser?
                Maybe TLSSVC
                Don't box ourselves in
                Argues to have it in DNSOP
                Size constraints might not be important
        Stephen Farrell: If browsers implement this, I like it
                If there is a ESNI RRtype, would clients look up both?
                        Erik: It would be nice to have both on one service
        Ben: On ESNI, pick HTTPSSVC instead of ESNI
                This draft allows arbitrary new protocols to use this
                alt-svc can be expanded to other protocols
        Eric Orth: Chrome team likes the sound of this
                Would likely only use this when they have DoH
                Worried about sending out third query for each request
                Still room for other solutions like ANAME when not doing DoH

draft-brotman-rdbd, Stephen Farrell

        Jeff Hodges: Kicking this can down the road for a long time
                There is a problem statement draft
                This draft does not yet cover all the intricacies, could be
                added Needs ability to say "I don't belong in that policy
                domain"
        Stéphane Bortzmeyer: Why not use DNSSEC instead of adding its own
        authentication
                Stephen: Maybe what's in here is a subset
        John Bradley: We have a bunch of projects that need this
                Lots of other authentication specs could use this
        Paul Wouters: Was against this in the past, but is now in favor
                Possibly could encompass "more specific URL" from forms and so
                on Use DNSSEC as the trust model If powerbind proposal moves
                forward, can distance from your parent
        Murray Kucherawy: DMARC WG is also working in this space
                Can this do something to replace the entire set of things
        Benno: Move the discussion from DBOUND to DNSOP

draft-sah-resolver-information, Puneet Sood

        Moving DoH endpoints to separate draft.
        Ben Schwarz: support adoption, like to solve use case. Like the Special
        use Domain use case more than reverse IP. Paul Wouters: Had a
        discussion in Trans on BCP190 and .well-known and was shot down. Not
        using .well-known is a hard problem. Stephane Bortzmeyer: Do Not Like.
        Close to captive portal WG. special case of Provisioning Domains? Paul
        Hofmann:  Could be done in DHC, but DoH WG not interested. But resolver
        might want to tell you other things. Not a Provisioning thing. Stephane
        Bortzmeyer: Seems similar problem, add words. Jim Reid: attempts to
        solve real problem, WG should adopt Wes Hardaker: Support in concept
        Paul Hoffman: Very Lightweight. Totally open to updating format. Ben
        Schwarz: Provisioning is useful for local, but I view this as
        non-local. Wants DNS Traceroute

draft-moura-dnsop-authoritative-recommendations, Giovane Moura

        Chairs discussion of whether the document should be adopted
        Asks for more review
        Matt Pounsett: Since this is a review of academic papers, what is the
        contribution of the WG?
                Feels like independent submission

draft-fujiwara-dnsop-avoid-fragmentation, Kazinori Fujiwara

        Lars-Johan Liman: How to put this to the end users
                "Recommendations" vs. "Consideration"
                Technically fine
        Puneet: In favor of fixing UDP frag issue
                Can work on specifics in the WG
        Erik: PLPMTUD draft in Int Area
        Petr: Support the document
        Brian: The reality is worse than what is in the original research
                Supports resolver vendors doing this
        Mark Andrews: Also could use well-known TSIG key (new draft)
                75% of top servers could deploy the well-known TSIG
                There are ways around this without getting rid of
                fragmentation, but there are issues with going to TCP
        Benno: WG seems interested in this draft as well as Mark's

draft-woodworth-bulk-rr, John Woodworth

    Geoff Huston: How do you sign it?
        With NPM, or online signing
        Warren: I have a lot of v6 space, so he wants this
        Olafur: Likes this, but doesn't like the name of RRTYPE
                Could use more examples, maybe not using so many regexps
                Online signing is OK.

draft-krecicki-dns-covert and draft-hunt-note-rr: Witold Kręcicki

        Petr: Smells like database with ACLs
                Can of worms, doesn't belong in DNS
        Stephen: Things could go wrong with authentication change of DNS-TLS-
        Terry Manderson: Just because you can, doesn't mean you should
                Doesn't want to see this in the DNS
        Warren: Special range feels icky
                Witold: Prevent each draft from needind to do their own
                        Don't do subtyping
        Evan: This kind of thing is already in the DNS
                Many operators have asked for this
                Examples of things that cannot be queried
                Some use cases have already been done
        Petr: Evan has a point
                Opportunity to make a much better zone transfer protocol
        Wes: DNS is not designed to be an entity-to-entity protocol
                In security context, we almost always require private data
                out-of-band
        Jim Reid: Thinks it a bad idea
                Security through obscurity
                Slippery slope
                The DNS is public
        Liman: Doesn't belong in the zone
                Maybe invent a new transfer type
                Doesn't feel right to have it inside the zone
        Petr: Can this be done with catalog zones instead?
                Catalog zones are for entire zone
                Wants it in the same hierarchy in the zone
        Paul Hoffman: Re-emphasized Petr's suggestion of a new zone transfer
        program