Minutes for DNSOP at IETF-96
minutes-96-dnsop-1

Meeting Minutes Domain Name System Operations (dnsop) WG
Title Minutes for DNSOP at IETF-96
State Active
Other versions plain text
Last updated 2016-07-18

Meeting Minutes
minutes-96-dnsop

   DNS Operations (DNSOP) Working Group
IETF 96, Berlin
Monday 18 July 2016
Minutes taken Paul Hoffman
Text from slides not included here; please read the slides

Chairs: Tim Wicinski, Suzanne Woolf

Current WG documents: https://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/dnsop/doclist.html
        Also see https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dnsop/documents/

Agenda Bashing, Blue Sheets, etc,
        Nothing

Updates of Old Work
        Three RFCs
        Three drafts in IESG evaluation
        Waiting on two docs
        Five drafts will come through the pipeline
        One draft in call for adoption
        Matt Larson
                ZSK size is increasing, KSK is rolling
        Lots of drafts are being considered for adoption

draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis status: Paul Hoffman
        Aaron Falk: If we can't agree on a term, maybe we should stop using the
        term Benno Overeinder: Are we also looking for implementations?
                Paul: No.

draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse: Warren Kumari
        Aaron: Your amount dropped below where it started, are legitimate
        queries being dropped?
                Warren: We did check, and we're quite sure
        John Levine: You could instead be mirroring the root
                Warren: Yes, but this helps for some DDoS
                John: Also usable for IPv6 reverse DNS blacklists
                        You have old advice
        Duane Wessels: Did you turn this on for everything?
                Warren: Yes

TLS-TCP-DNS implementation: Sara Dickinson
        Lots of recent improvement, including this weekend at the hackathon
                Both authoritative and stubs
        Ondrej Sury: Can you add padding to the server tests?

draft-bellis-dnsop-session-signal: Ray Bellis
        Ben Schwartz: How does interact with HTTP wire format draft?
                Ray: Should not be bad
                Ben: HTTP 2 allows out-of-order
        Aaron: The PLUS BoF on Thursday might be of interest, this might be a
        user of PLUS Stewart Cheshire: These sessions defines a session of a
        particular type, so it can run over any transport that handles it
                Do we use something small (will surprise tools) or EDNS0?
                        Suzanne: take that to the list

draft-wkumari-dnsop-multiple-responses: Wes Hardaker and Warren Kumari
        Ralf Weber: EXTRA record allows DOSing
                Wes: Suggest to have policy on when to use
        Christian Huitema: Browsers already do something like this
                Is this really worth it?
                Warren: There is more than the web
                Wes: This does not help a resolver that has already cached the
                information, of course Christian: Double-optimization may lead
                to worse performance
        Jim Reid: Similar to an ANY amplification attack
                Can we get some data on what the optimization benefit will
                before we move forwards on this? Warren: yes, we shoud
        Sara: How does this affect client-subnet
                Warren: Has to be from the authoritative server
        Marc Blanchet: Any problem with DNS64?
                Warren: Yes, DNSSEC
        Teddy Hogeborn: Issue with format of record
                Wes: This will probably change
                Teddy: This might help because of SRV
        David Lawrence: With client-subnet, you'll have to give the most
        specific answer
                An authoritative server should need to be sure that it was
                authoritative Wes: You have that issue today with DNSSEC and
                TTLs
        Hums: Lots of people want to hear more data first

draft-bellis-dnsext-multi-qtypes: Ray Bellis
        Limited to one QNAME/QCLASS
        If we decide not to do any mulitple-query proposals, we should write a
        document why John Levine: What if you're getting a CNAME back?
                Has to be specified
                Mark Andrews: We can specify how to do this
        Kazunori Fujiwara: Wants a summary of why the previous proposals failed
        Ralf Weber: The only real use case is A/AAAA, the rest are not that
        useful optimizations
                Ray: Also MX/A
        David Lawrence: Likes this for A/AAAA
        Peter van Dijk: You are copying the QR bit: why?
                Ray: They certailny still exist. Helps prevent someone just
                mirroring.
        Shane Kerr: Can be a huge win with A/AAAA

draft-woodworth-bulk-rr: John Woodworth
        Viktor Dukhovni: Is this record available for client queries?
                John: Yes
                Viktor: This will require on-the-fly NSEC
                John: If it is not on-the-fly, the client needs to be updated
                        Should only use on-the-fly
        David Lawrence: Likes this. Don't attach this to a wildcard label.
        Teddy: It is not really a record type. Maybe it should be a directive
        instead, but then it doesn't work with AXFR.
                Maybe needs a new form of zone transfer.
        Ed Lewis: DNAME redirects but doesn't need to be signed. Just needs a
        signature on redirector.

draft-muks-dnsop-dns-catalog-zones
        Tim: Read the draft because this might come up in the WG

Special Names Portion: Suzanne Woolf
        Note from the minutes-taker: If you are reading this, you *really*
        should read all the slides, including Suzanne's
        draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem: Geoff Huston
        draft-tldr-sutld-ps: Ted Lemon draft-wkumari-dnsop-alt-tld: Warren
        Kumari draft-cheshire-sudn-ipv4only-dot-arpa: David Schinazi Discussion
        starts Paul Hoffman: Doesn't like the history section because it
        doesn't quote, it retells Alain: Doesn't think that there are
        preferences in draft-adpkja, please send to the list
                There is a fair amont of overlap in the problems listed
                Difference: how to evaluate a particular string
        Ted: draft-adpkja covers problems with 6761, draft-tldr covers the
        bigger problem Alain: Might want to publish separately because they are
        on different topics Joel Jaeggli: Expected an alternative draft, but
        thinks that adopting two would be bad Ralph Droms: Thinks draft-tldr is
        a superset of draft-adpkja
                Some things in draft-adpkja are not problems, but just not as
                well specified Which covers the larger set Ted: Did not cover
                problems with solutions
        Stewart: Thanks to Ted and Ralph
        Geoff: Part of the problem is what can be unilaterally solvable in the
        IETF
                draft-tldr cannot be addressed ourselve
        Suzanne: Maybe will have an interim soon