From nobody Thu Apr 10 10:51:22 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: int-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: int-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16FB51A02D1 for ; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 10:51:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IjfbPxx1tsGp for ; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 10:51:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from uillean.fuaim.com (uillean.fuaim.com [206.197.161.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 449021A032A for ; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 10:51:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from clairseach.fuaim.com (clairseach-high.fuaim.com [206.197.161.158]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by uillean.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A08D48812E for ; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 10:51:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 10252220.rudm1.ra.johnshopkins.edu (addr16212925014.ippl.jhmi.edu [162.129.250.14]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clairseach.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69CC471B0001 for ; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 10:51:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5346DA10.60900@innovationslab.net> Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 13:51:12 -0400 From: Brian Haberman User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: int-dir@ietf.org X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="HIcuLGmgKES2K8eUkxIk3CTKAapRbS1pL" Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-dir/V3nX0aLUMsmKZGi013F1uE5AtJw Subject: [Int-dir] Welcome to the Internet Area Directorate X-BeenThere: int-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "This list is for discussion between the members of the Internet Area directorate." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 17:51:20 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --HIcuLGmgKES2K8eUkxIk3CTKAapRbS1pL Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all, As you are receiving this note via the mailing list, it should be obvious that you are now an official member of the Internet Area Directorate. Thank you for agreeing to help! The primary goals, from my perspective, for forming this directorate are: 1. Help the Internet ADs with document reviews as needed. Unlike other directorates like GenArt and Sec-Dir, this directorate will no review every document put forth for publication. Rather, it will be on-demand when one of the INT ADs has a need for additional reviews. 2. Expose directorate members to the tasks taken on by ADs. If you look at the history of many ADs, most of them were involved in a (or several) directorates. That exposure provides a view as to what it takes to be an AD. 3. Mentor newer IETF participants. At this point, the directorate is small (2 coordinators, 18 members). What I would like to see is current directorate members helping to identify newer IETF participants who have the potential to be useful, contributing members to the directorate so that they get exposure/tutoring from more experienced IETF participants. The goal is to grow the directorate without losing technical expertise. 4. Identify INT-related work in other areas. Given the breadth within the INT area, it is impossible for two ADs to keep track of all INT-related work going on in other areas. I would ask that each of you to let the ADs and the rest of the directorate know when work pops up in other areas that may adversely impact INT or would benefit from INT area input. This mailing list is a closed list (directorate members only). Feel free to use it to discuss INT-related issues, directorate operations, or other topics you think might benefit from others' input. Regards, Brian --HIcuLGmgKES2K8eUkxIk3CTKAapRbS1pL Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.20 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJTRtoWAAoJEBOZRqCi7goqH1EH/10I278MFGZBACZLduK7GPpg J57UEK+WSyHByx7SlSinzMWGZThgXalSIkmCugCJfdI7r2hUp6Daoj/KWiW6PYMy pemjmdJP36LIKpStak4kM4Z07tglsKB4pz1xU8Rpd3G9gR6SUDEqvzKksaCCGGML 4NvTlur8CL+OaUFP3z9V8ToyK55QJHyMn3BVzpyML2V7K2dnQE6vFK8sLigSIEvh 75hOALF8VJ70Fb1Q8W8DnfN06TO1gQ1ykvN+OJsAlarfy0rv4o62qSXZg6k/IDOl 8Zxk0em3Uk+uxM5ucVq2Vw5KoVRhEH0x2TJz13gg5/66D84+ORkQ/vLyGsLunso= =aM0A -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --HIcuLGmgKES2K8eUkxIk3CTKAapRbS1pL-- From nobody Thu Apr 10 13:01:28 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: int-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: int-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5B151A03CE for ; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 13:01:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.172 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.172 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.272] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MddBbIG7nfKy for ; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 13:01:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shell-too.nominum.com (shell-too.nominum.com [64.89.228.229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D16F41A033C for ; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 13:01:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FFB81B8078 for ; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 13:01:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2942F19005C for ; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 13:01:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.10.40] (192.168.1.10) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 13:01:25 -0700 From: Ted Lemon Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: <62D9969C-BB5E-463F-B2DF-86D802C6AE8E@nominum.com> Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 16:01:23 -0400 To: MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874) X-Originating-IP: [192.168.1.10] Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-dir/Xf38Lm1vJHhVT7J_ixNaaf-9sZ0 Subject: [Int-dir] Request for quick review of a DISCUSS X-BeenThere: int-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "This list is for discussion between the members of the Internet Area directorate." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 20:01:27 -0000 On the topic of things ADs do, one of them is to try to notice issues in = specs from other areas that relate to their area and come up with = answers. There's currently a DISCUSS on a CDNI document that could use = more DNS fu than I happen to have=97I think I see a problem with it, but = I do not know how much effort ought to be expended addressing the = problem. The DISCUSS can be found here: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cdni-framework/ballot/ It's the one I put on the document. If anybody is interested in = digging a little deeper, please let the coordinator know, and I can pass = along more of the discussion that's happened so far. Thanks! From nobody Thu Apr 10 15:24:12 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: int-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: int-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 277961A0232 for ; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 15:24:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.922 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.922 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZWpLrPXTEyxs for ; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 15:24:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wg0-x22b.google.com (mail-wg0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::22b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FD551A024F for ; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 15:24:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wg0-f43.google.com with SMTP id x13so4558073wgg.26 for ; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 15:24:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=UL4HA7eQ2tkRZ9HjwBul9pTT5Y76I4MV5xGEKc0nkkM=; b=uea0lg1jWvOplL1DXmRheAFFiLFo2FZ1xO34iXZaVKp+umIangROWEgmlDdXTwd8sn J6WfdncGjDbYx1Rjln4FnchaZZFCdX37BFPEJ5vBBIBqD1ab9td8o3/e9YJOdFlxm1eI HVWcJHrBcODQBlH2C3QikM/yCwYl7M3dXy5AiPwD0pDBU+jXzmD9CIpVnfyOs/L07En9 ZWVHBqrxYEYBRL/gS1JUaMw1f2Yt9iJbdfBqbEZpS9HWkVbYWwlzK+0KB6IkRlIFf+e7 41EevAxcVjAV4m264sJAIC1kRH5Wb+m6yj64zLCRUIr6q/jowhoXcrcyYPIAi7SF2siM MN8Q== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.206.48 with SMTP id ll16mr16973595wic.57.1397168645829; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 15:24:05 -0700 (PDT) Sender: jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com Received: by 10.194.123.101 with HTTP; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 15:24:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <62D9969C-BB5E-463F-B2DF-86D802C6AE8E@nominum.com> References: <62D9969C-BB5E-463F-B2DF-86D802C6AE8E@nominum.com> Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 15:24:05 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 9IBb3kQLTt9xkh5-LW5XV0g1ei4 Message-ID: From: =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?= To: Ted Lemon Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-dir/xnaaR1GNK15u0H6OEB9vG3o_SLA Cc: int-dir@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Int-dir] Request for quick review of a DISCUSS X-BeenThere: int-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "This list is for discussion between the members of the Internet Area directorate." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 22:24:10 -0000 At Thu, 10 Apr 2014 16:01:23 -0400, Ted Lemon wrote: > It's the one I put on the document. If anybody is interested in digging a little deeper, please let the coordinator know, and I can pass along more of the discussion that's happened so far. So you're asking about this one, right? >> In 3.4: >> The Request Router returns a DNS CNAME response by "stacking" the >> distinguished identifier for Operator B onto the original CDN- >> Domain (e.g., b.cdn.csp.example), plus an NS record that maps >> b.cdn.csp.example to B's Request Router. >> >> 2. The end-user does a DNS lookup using the modified CDN-Domain >> (i.e., b.cdn.csp.example). This causes B's Request Router to >> respond with a suitable delivery node. >> >> What's up with the NS record here? Are you relying on glue to make sure that >> the query goes to the right nameserver? Adding the NS record in this case doesn't make much sense, at least in practice, to me either. But perhaps the intent is a possible optimization: since the CNAME target (b.cdn.csp.example) is a subdomain of the "current" qname (cdn.csp.example), a recursive server would have to send the renamed query (from cdn.csp.example to b.cdn.csp.example) to the same (set of) name server, just to get the delegation anyway, so there might be a recursive server implementation that just skips this additional query and immediately follows the delegation. But I don't know of such a recursive server implementation. At least neither BIND 9 nor unbound seems to skip the "redundant" query in this case. And this NS (with CNAME) shouldn't be "necessary". Any reasonable recursive server implementation should resend the query for b.cdn.csp.example, get the delegation, and then follow it. So, asking the authors for the intent would be good, and whatever it is, it would be helpful to point out that it's either unnecessary or doesn't work as intended. -- JINMEI, Tatuya From nobody Thu Apr 10 15:32:56 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: int-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: int-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3DAB1A02D7 for ; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 15:32:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.922 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.922 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ldqrQeHeKlm1 for ; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 15:32:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-we0-x235.google.com (mail-we0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 271D71A02C1 for ; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 15:32:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-we0-f181.google.com with SMTP id q58so4509419wes.40 for ; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 15:32:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=NOJJbPUcTKrmF1l5kqbYL/DMhsbyiz+0qaeiBhuL5iU=; b=a8d/UEyrvfztPtzd5Ya5TX4n0PAZI1KCW2Z6l6oDVS33QXeGaxGLAQTr9HMdrmS5P/ qBR5QMEFiJ5H/j15j1WQnwpphKlzw8iKuFdLYuTpp46juEXzPDCyohTyJe3P/eCZ99mY bKG4Nh2be2A5SwNNFmcxWtnfZ06vZMMHvWIM6w1/DBmta1swJiqNDMvQUSNo+ay0hINL u1Rt2Zd2NM+WLJ2iH/oxcLhLDYwjyL0426vpmZPnnHyurs0uQ969j8ANP9IH0iZIkz5s LP9vYlyOdAlWlAzPgzMMIsP3x7gsElSWx7oksldpLfqzIAxshYxgOs4kn+Ox3nZIdl6v ATPA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.72.205 with SMTP id f13mr14711wiv.45.1397169167690; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 15:32:47 -0700 (PDT) Sender: jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com Received: by 10.194.123.101 with HTTP; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 15:32:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <62D9969C-BB5E-463F-B2DF-86D802C6AE8E@nominum.com> Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 15:32:47 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: xYdbJRHdHBmIJzuTMgFtu0-V05s Message-ID: From: =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?= To: Ted Lemon Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-dir/jMZpoe2BKE6PoGUUzAvummefpH8 Cc: int-dir@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Int-dir] Request for quick review of a DISCUSS X-BeenThere: int-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "This list is for discussion between the members of the Internet Area directorate." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 22:32:52 -0000 I forgot to say this... >> In 3.4: >> The Request Router returns a DNS CNAME response by "stacking" the >> distinguished identifier for Operator B onto the original CDN- >> Domain (e.g., b.cdn.csp.example), plus an NS record that maps >> b.cdn.csp.example to B's Request Router. depending on the authoritative server implementation, you can see this NS record anyway. For example, BIND 9 would include NS for b.cdn.csp.example in the authority section. So perhaps the author just tries to describe the behavior of some specific implementation. But, as explained in my previous response, it's quite likely to be useless for the resolver in practice, and wouldn't have to be mentioned here. -- JINMEI, Tatuya From nobody Thu Apr 10 15:35:58 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: int-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: int-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13A9C1A02C8 for ; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 15:35:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.872 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.872 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.272] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bFf7-oDwj46g for ; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 15:35:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shell-too.nominum.com (shell-too.nominum.com [64.89.228.229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E9BA1A02C1 for ; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 15:35:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 395911B806B for ; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 15:35:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20B3019005C; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 15:35:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.10.40] (192.168.1.10) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 15:35:55 -0700 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\)) From: Ted Lemon In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 18:35:54 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: <72AA52ED-0730-43AF-B1D6-855C7632ADAD@nominum.com> References: <62D9969C-BB5E-463F-B2DF-86D802C6AE8E@nominum.com> To: =?utf-8?B?56We5piO6YGU5ZOJ?= X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874) X-Originating-IP: [192.168.1.10] Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-dir/9cam1uVNM2vJ37OXRkkMqwGHdMg Cc: int-dir@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Int-dir] Request for quick review of a DISCUSS X-BeenThere: int-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "This list is for discussion between the members of the Internet Area directorate." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 22:35:57 -0000 The authors in fact intended to include the NS record as glue and = intended that it determine which name server was queried to resolve the = name specified in the CNAME response. I don't want to send the whole = conversation to the int-dir mailing list, but if you would like I will = send it to you. The same goes for anybody else who is interested in = looking at it. From nobody Thu Apr 10 17:12:39 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: int-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: int-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C456C1A0387 for ; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 17:12:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.922 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.922 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eZnxmGWNCkMY for ; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 17:12:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wg0-x234.google.com (mail-wg0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5031D1A0394 for ; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 17:12:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wg0-f52.google.com with SMTP id k14so4649542wgh.11 for ; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 17:12:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=7tKUsXzHUJNp8iGqOCnV04MNGt2jMa0iqy7oJ4SmR5g=; b=Bzmrt1HwmU5gSDotGEZWCPWd8TU0Br7v3a9AXcf0cnwGIKl74hC4s5coXHE7Eyt08S SgNfCdCZ9P1qBH1o5Gc1RD0ACYWtMJkIDGmeGqmycW1Am7soIAF1EdNMaSHMIcgaP+B9 2MYHdsZNCPr/Y9Ewkh1p1o2m+14zWxAFxHLxdCLYLx2rWpZ049hxy2XhUXuYxgf2SQkN wtyA89YplPAyJxkrF7AdLNlD1nEuZgCHEioAzqzZPl4Fx5UjJqTII95uJ6PzNxdoOAA7 ps0KNZPLscPLlowPTq9vd++Gf8T+RLRpdZTonXP17ZJJj5MdlO7eAKOe2N+Z5+PphBpb xprA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.57.77 with SMTP id g13mr17506114wjq.42.1397175148794; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 17:12:28 -0700 (PDT) Sender: jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com Received: by 10.194.123.101 with HTTP; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 17:12:28 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <72AA52ED-0730-43AF-B1D6-855C7632ADAD@nominum.com> References: <62D9969C-BB5E-463F-B2DF-86D802C6AE8E@nominum.com> <72AA52ED-0730-43AF-B1D6-855C7632ADAD@nominum.com> Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 17:12:28 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 5mNF4AyP1XTc4WVL58sTsRFck8M Message-ID: From: =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?= To: Ted Lemon Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-dir/pD3g5-AhQplYiRiI-U1CwhAoK1k Cc: int-dir@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Int-dir] Request for quick review of a DISCUSS X-BeenThere: int-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "This list is for discussion between the members of the Internet Area directorate." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 00:12:35 -0000 At Thu, 10 Apr 2014 18:35:54 -0400, Ted Lemon wrote: > The authors in fact intended to include the NS record as glue and > intended that it determine which name server was queried to resolve > the name specified in the CNAME response. I don't want to send the > whole conversation to the int-dir mailing list, but if you would > like I will send it to you. The same goes for anybody else who is > interested in looking at it. >From a quick read of the followup discussion (sent to me off-list), the authors seem to assume the "glue" NS sent with the CNAME is used by the resolver. As I explained in my first message, that's simply not the case, at least for two popular resolver implementations. The resolver will send the revised query (for the CNAME target) to the best available server for the resolver. It may be the uCDN, or if the resolver cached something before, that server. But it's not the "glue" NS returned with the CNAME. -- JINMEI, Tatuya From nobody Thu Apr 10 17:25:40 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: int-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: int-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F6611A038A for ; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 17:25:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.872 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.872 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.272] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kyOgRu3B-R1f for ; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 17:25:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shell-too.nominum.com (shell-too.nominum.com [64.89.228.229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F4EF1A0357 for ; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 17:25:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DF791B806B for ; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 17:25:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-01.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.131]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7267919005C; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 17:25:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.10.40] (192.168.1.10) by CAS-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.100) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 17:25:37 -0700 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\)) From: Ted Lemon In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 20:25:35 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: <02BA319F-FE40-400C-9B3A-A8933E76E9CA@nominum.com> References: <62D9969C-BB5E-463F-B2DF-86D802C6AE8E@nominum.com> <72AA52ED-0730-43AF-B1D6-855C7632ADAD@nominum.com> To: =?utf-8?B?56We5piO6YGU5ZOJ?= X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874) X-Originating-IP: [192.168.1.10] Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-dir/X8xXTNB4sEtuqtlqz7zvxYzHCO8 Cc: int-dir@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Int-dir] Request for quick review of a DISCUSS X-BeenThere: int-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "This list is for discussion between the members of the Internet Area directorate." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 00:25:39 -0000 Thanks, that's very helpful. Do you have any thoughts about the DNSSEC = question? :) I guess if the glue records aren't going to be used anyway, the question = of whether they validate is immaterial. From nobody Fri Apr 11 09:55:34 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: int-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: int-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C4011A0711 for ; Fri, 11 Apr 2014 09:55:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.922 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.922 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8S8TipaGYwzw for ; Fri, 11 Apr 2014 09:55:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-we0-x22b.google.com (mail-we0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::22b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0668C1A0289 for ; Fri, 11 Apr 2014 09:55:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-we0-f171.google.com with SMTP id t61so5563964wes.2 for ; Fri, 11 Apr 2014 09:55:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=BPGtXGqt0NpkzSW31ClJXstt2KqshFJeulO1HAs+EiQ=; b=WBW0jmi3k6TuA09Rh6h65ZM0YDQy2ugaVa8S1pIoFbKu2HRPwonLCOKQCxmJtf/bVG rhiN+fSeZudc6XEOIZHK6mAINjxC/mnAbQYxo6SiNMd9lQq/bTGwuT0w3p8aaf/Fdke4 UwcIWlQHFgDNae4wB3hT7rMiISPpFNqtWD/rz+nkR3Xm1tjzAw1XyU8OiiRX3UdUpOfO tZH6dfgxZPq907BKpeGllOgeged0UZVf7D4L6Gq0kMs+gY58NBjYVPEqPGQY7U6Hkbz/ TRJq37DxSUeER+AFAoQWP4Kt6i+/Z6yxvhvHqi0zC5w32kfdp4D/RSqPufy2JUmCCClP AyIg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.72.205 with SMTP id f13mr4328971wiv.45.1397235327210; Fri, 11 Apr 2014 09:55:27 -0700 (PDT) Sender: jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com Received: by 10.194.123.101 with HTTP; Fri, 11 Apr 2014 09:55:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <02BA319F-FE40-400C-9B3A-A8933E76E9CA@nominum.com> References: <62D9969C-BB5E-463F-B2DF-86D802C6AE8E@nominum.com> <72AA52ED-0730-43AF-B1D6-855C7632ADAD@nominum.com> <02BA319F-FE40-400C-9B3A-A8933E76E9CA@nominum.com> Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 09:55:27 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: vR6o1I8JINJoS_Qse4CJItXbkDk Message-ID: From: =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?= To: Ted Lemon Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-dir/RdPxHORvqu5uHM1UvARZZ9lcCXg Cc: int-dir@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Int-dir] Request for quick review of a DISCUSS X-BeenThere: int-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "This list is for discussion between the members of the Internet Area directorate." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 16:55:33 -0000 At Thu, 10 Apr 2014 20:25:35 -0400, Ted Lemon wrote: > Thanks, that's very helpful. Do you have any thoughts about the DNSSEC question? :) Regarding DNSSEC, the concern is how to sign this CNAME at the "request router at Operator A"? cdn.csp.example. CNAME b.cdn.csp.example. That could be expensive but shouldn't be impossible in principle, as you said in your message to the authors. And, perhaps it can be even less expensive, depending on the operational assumptions. I've only read Section 3.4 of the draft, but according to that it doesn't seem to be very dynamic. That is, the uCDN knows all possible dCDNs and how to generate the unique identifier (such as "b" in this example) for each dCDN, and changes to the set of dCDNS are relatively rare events. If so, I can imagine making the signing quite static: the uCDN could compute valid signatures for all possible CNAMEs beforehand, and just return the appropriate CNAME + its RRSIG(s) depending on the client information. Technically, however, you should also increment the SOA serial every time you change the returned CNAME and therefore re-sign it, so if you don't do that it's still cheating. In any case, these are not a DNSSEC implication because of the "glue" NS record. It's more about supporting DNSSEC for a zone (conceptually) changing so rapidly, essentially at the query rate. If the concern is how to make the delegation from cdn.csp.example. to b.cdn.csp.example secure in terms of DNSSEC, i.e., adding a valid DS and its signature, it's relevant to the glue NS record in some sense. Depending on the operational assumption, this might actually be an easier problem: if the delegation relationship itself is stable (i.e., the dDNS zone keeps either signed or unsigned, and if signed its KSK doesn't change so often), the uDNS could simply include the DS (or not include it if the child zone is unsigned) and sign it. It doesn't become invalid even if the CNAME changes, so it wouldn't be that different from usual parent-child issues in terms of DNSSEC. -- jinmei From nobody Thu Apr 24 08:50:20 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: int-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: int-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B2C01A02D7 for ; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 08:50:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pdAQ0Rqy7wbq for ; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 08:50:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from uillean.fuaim.com (uillean.fuaim.com [206.197.161.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47A7C1A0275 for ; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 08:50:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from clairseach.fuaim.com (clairseach-high.fuaim.com [206.197.161.158]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by uillean.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A521880CE for ; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 08:50:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 1025213.rudm1.ra.johnshopkins.edu (addr16212925014.ippl.jhmi.edu [162.129.250.14]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clairseach.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31B8D71B0001 for ; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 08:50:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <535932BA.6010102@innovationslab.net> Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 11:50:18 -0400 From: Brian Haberman User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: int-dir@ietf.org X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="dElRtFQt429s1Lw2BICX5R7pqd9GA5JBL" Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-dir/wLDrduqMTCnG8NAqonqZ2FqBwNs Subject: [Int-dir] Request for fragmentation help X-BeenThere: int-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "This list is for discussion between the members of the Internet Area directorate." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 15:50:15 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --dElRtFQt429s1Lw2BICX5R7pqd9GA5JBL Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable All, We have a document that tries to develop a mechanism for fragmenting IKEv2 messages at the application layer. There have been a number of concerns raised and the shepherding AD is looking for help. Is there anyone interested in helping the author/WG tighten up this document from the fragmentation aspect? The document is draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-fragmentation. Any volunteers? Regards, Brian --dElRtFQt429s1Lw2BICX5R7pqd9GA5JBL Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.20 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJTWTLBAAoJEBOZRqCi7goqipwIALYSH8Nnj+zHsQ7znV79WV9b OStAg11/lUA7us4aB8oMJZ4EUsrPxghXrkDyruAXhMkkaVwdwTwD6nMY11S5RCpe FHaibpi+AlxMtp7CRMlEAz23QFr6+6nvNw0g4PYfZqZHzvxRexltpdzpeK159z+t vcSTyrFH8ycVzP/rOu93l62C9qmz/1Meg4oAzxIFYlScdmOmOWM3o2c3KJGuCCOB Dq6WKQqAZhhb7GLFSzpowdF85mg3IaKK5WeKDOhZTdAHd0Woem+7creddH9ZHOg2 /BL3RrmiAu72AT2tnawpjDeR8BzEOipxZC5kXFRfx47NW8MQL3vwrq/w+0A5c7c= =9Px9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --dElRtFQt429s1Lw2BICX5R7pqd9GA5JBL-- From nobody Fri Apr 25 09:06:21 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: int-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: int-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19B711A064F for ; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 09:06:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.978 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zaNFduOA1ZXN for ; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 09:06:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-we0-x22b.google.com (mail-we0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::22b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB2041A065D for ; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 09:06:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-we0-f171.google.com with SMTP id t61so3838119wes.30 for ; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 09:06:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=Ft3K93X3kxaPKNqqXfjRYTfbNy7ml7b/L7Vray1bk54=; b=P3mQsP8I1MddPieGTE121utdRC/Vs0gVWVczbDtbNx/Ujr6hxSljJllKa98KLuyAL/ Zic1mbg3D1UnLKu1S3w7v5Iz2K3ak4w1emCGXkJ+TcHinh9kd1uuZ4B6A8XQ9wx+XGf5 K3rPaUgwjvklzu3gqgFaogxEzSIixmwqICqToQpEYdgz5b+EE+ZStJnGFTEpPd8XJkIA 7vbojG9uOKiZitG4wOquEWlvtg2lNwtQ9/G2JsNShT3za/9DLE8dHsMzqOfffM6Aj34s OpK+156npHBK2eafUQtEV3gGpbHZfuYBXbvDm85sGh40ULpL7lAZfhVsb1mjHp+TX2Vu Hkqg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.103.36 with SMTP id ft4mr2185298wjb.66.1398441960786; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 09:06:00 -0700 (PDT) Sender: jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com Received: by 10.194.3.14 with HTTP; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 09:06:00 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <535932BA.6010102@innovationslab.net> References: <535932BA.6010102@innovationslab.net> Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 09:06:00 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: kkCCTJvE9OuKa5oAsmkECDyk6Bc Message-ID: From: =?UTF-8?B?56We5piO6YGU5ZOJ?= To: Brian Haberman Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-dir/slLVK2ja7bwgaU7hXbgIMQnuH3g Cc: int-dir@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Int-dir] Request for fragmentation help X-BeenThere: int-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "This list is for discussion between the members of the Internet Area directorate." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 16:06:11 -0000 At Thu, 24 Apr 2014 11:50:18 -0400, Brian Haberman wrote: > We have a document that tries to develop a mechanism for > fragmenting IKEv2 messages at the application layer. There have been a > number of concerns raised and the shepherding AD is looking for help. > Is there anyone interested in helping the author/WG tighten up this > document from the fragmentation aspect? > > The document is draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-fragmentation. Any > volunteers? Depending on the details of the issue I may be of help (but I'm not familiar with IKE(v2) itself, so if such background is needed, I'm probably not the best person to volunteer). -- JINMEI, Tatuya From nobody Mon Apr 28 09:39:54 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: int-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: int-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 808A41A0290 for ; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 09:39:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.978 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ih3uNXoE5kwO for ; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 09:39:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-we0-x236.google.com (mail-we0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C47D1A0248 for ; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 09:39:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-we0-f182.google.com with SMTP id u57so3416074wes.13 for ; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 09:39:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=hFPJBoept5KEe37b/dQWXABiw+3rG8XVmqxix3HHnvY=; b=OcESbtxkHWtyaguRKExV49Ugte1fdMyFJzHVeZ0yZgLc1OcOIO1F7SidTSO158EPfW 0aKellYlvwSCUZmicf7NOZWyiqKwfYORmCgnY+eUf+UydazZk/8OmzbTUIcYlexQtcju VbTjjdUPGS4JEe6EcubqItSn06MaIgih8i03NyrSPd23RYJUybpAfRqPzfyEwNAsn1At SoBe9CF6dcG9EfH71DuL47Q5f4U2NahnZZpPN5QRrlonWQKBxfJmvVo7naKJY1rB6kJz RnEBGMVihA5FAqNy6IH31ljQxC97xLHM9Nq7X5v5L8XO4q5/5ZvufXntjOsouM4hTUE4 2AMg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.204.199 with SMTP id la7mr20142824wjc.4.1398703189935; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 09:39:49 -0700 (PDT) Sender: jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com Received: by 10.194.3.14 with HTTP; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 09:39:49 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <535932BA.6010102@innovationslab.net> Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 09:39:49 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: aRZM-bWLrN3gmcFZhAU0R1mzxNk Message-ID: From: =?UTF-8?B?56We5piO6YGU5ZOJ?= To: Brian Haberman Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-dir/nDlUpyQ22JK_f0CFp59uBfJroXw Cc: int-dir@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Int-dir] Request for fragmentation help X-BeenThere: int-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "This list is for discussion between the members of the Internet Area directorate." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 16:39:52 -0000 On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 9:06 AM wrote: >> We have a document that tries to develop a mechanism for >> fragmenting IKEv2 messages at the application layer. There have been a >> number of concerns raised and the shepherding AD is looking for help. >> Is there anyone interested in helping the author/WG tighten up this >> document from the fragmentation aspect? >> >> The document is draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-fragmentation. Any >> volunteers? > > Depending on the details of the issue I may be of help (but I'm not > familiar with IKE(v2) itself, so if such background is needed, I'm > probably not the best person to volunteer). Okay, based on an offlist response from Brian I took a quick look at the ballot discussion: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-fragmentation/ballot/ Actually this seems to be something different on which I can be of much help. I guess someone (if any) familiar with topics like RFC4821 is a better person to help. -- JINMEI, Tatuya From nobody Mon Apr 28 10:56:51 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: int-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: int-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A0471A6F8E for ; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 10:56:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.921 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.921 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qdYYyF1-MYZm for ; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 10:56:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-we0-x234.google.com (mail-we0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D28F1A6F54 for ; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 10:56:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-we0-f180.google.com with SMTP id t61so1929073wes.11 for ; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 10:56:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=9bDrAhPUkd5RsQQ52ClR0cF+QesFE65Y6vl2ThKXu0E=; b=DxxJGFFj/0qz0dut9bwcxYd7rZaCWq7Vip3IyMLwjiDbdlkJKSUo63RH7QOq1FQND4 PSS3d+u0LwYqo/Aw+mmU0s9YYDK/9A+nXdUf0B3ca7Teb1NN6C+9sxIRRHW2xHl6va22 0W5cO6VbrEAFzFGkPkWvkGTY0DXTO1fOZI89mZOOnCSoerifRD2LRUFtPxbJtdJ8piPl fwCHU1EgylPm5n3XTnQfM2sqywHfa5wttqgNozrg948+ofI/lkdnhw4m9pWzedioaNqs 8pEoBngDdaNzoMaZLUrEd1epefCsUOBNEHNP7KrmYQ24wT5ZTVL5XiH5Ijo+TlkrNWPS /DtA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.57.77 with SMTP id g13mr10907388wjq.42.1398707807864; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 10:56:47 -0700 (PDT) Sender: jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com Received: by 10.194.3.14 with HTTP; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 10:56:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <535932BA.6010102@innovationslab.net> Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 10:56:47 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: T9Zp-L0I8kAlv04t1apzWWe5-Qg Message-ID: From: =?UTF-8?B?56We5piO6YGU5ZOJ?= To: Brian Haberman Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-dir/o1Pt93bgb6XRxiY07e1ycQuF7mA Cc: int-dir@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Int-dir] Request for fragmentation help X-BeenThere: int-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "This list is for discussion between the members of the Internet Area directorate." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 17:56:50 -0000 On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 9:39 AM wrote: > Actually this seems to be something different on which I can be of > much help. Oops, this sentence didn't make sense. In short and to be blunt, I intended to say "I don't think I can help (very much)". Thanks Bernie:-) -- JINMEI, Tatuya