From jothan@gmail.com Wed Feb 5 15:30:12 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EA0C1A02D1 for ; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 15:30:12 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.799 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_24=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_32=0.6, SPF_PASS=-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 zntpXuGu77FV for ; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 15:30:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-vb0-x22a.google.com (mail-vb0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c02::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 419971A0275 for ; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 15:30:09 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-vb0-f42.google.com with SMTP id i3so853771vbh.15 for ; Wed, 05 Feb 2014 15:30:08 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=qiro4OtY0rvbwBVDfGUoefVFNogKO3c2RYMvGsuSRRA=; b=iuPKiyXFXHNxukNNyMubl+0jn/HIvZ38NTV1VXf3I1lMfcv0/hCQmU3pINanyFvdAY Ik/+b9w60d6uavOfbDQTXWlRMUari5UKIiP4bmeADUjYQGTl7EAQiYy9Nz5vM12YONXt v7J9U2+roJR/JZqA2HW0E30mSnOzqvQwPG47KzTSSwN4Zst+G9wV4FrgueCNawzJEcsT Jtm6/0h/X3nQRO1nz70ngC7SmlwT9I+H5M4wVGq8b7U9CO389mUVBpaU8FjAjLTUMLLU aGO9ESJ4l5M0YeCMHZkyZ74ctOGeVHvueNxheqSMIsZGysuSZhROcFkLRQhZnRyvk7uh ZIuw== X-Received: by 10.220.133.80 with SMTP id e16mr2789951vct.13.1391643008156; Wed, 05 Feb 2014 15:30:08 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.58.74.71 with HTTP; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 15:23:56 -0800 (PST) From: Jothan Frakes Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 15:23:56 -0800 Message-ID: To: olaf@nlnetlabs.nl, marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca, dbound@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11362cd427c87204f1b12364 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 16:00:34 -0800 Subject: [Dbound] Request to participate in DBOUND discussions X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 23:30:12 -0000 --001a11362cd427c87204f1b12364 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hi- Thank you for forming the DBOUND BoF. I hope it will evolve into a working group. This is an area of massive need within the developer community - and that need is exacerbated by the rapid expansion underway with new TLDs from ICANN. I am a long time volunteer with the Public Suffix List and want to be included in the discussions around DBOUND, as I have a substantial amount of exposure to the pros and cons of it that would be helpful towards minimum requirements of a successor from within the IETF, as well as a good understanding of the needs/wants from the community. Some background: I have been active in the domain name industry since the early 1990s. I was around to watch the challenges for developers that work with internet domain names in 2001 when TLDs like INFO or MUSEUM appeared and didn't immediately function. Most application developers used a static list at best or had very base logic about a dot followed by 3 or fewer letters. This got more sophisticated over time to reflect the subdelegations such as co.uk, co.jpor com.au stubs and systems like CentralNic's uk.com subdomains, but typically followed a static list. ICANN's glacial pace of introducing new TLDs over the 13 years that followed perpetuated the use of static lists. Cookies and security around cookies created the need for something that could keep pace with and map to the diversity of the ccTLD and subdomain space, and Jo Hermans founded the PSL. The PSL was among a number of different extension lists maintained by a variety of volunteers and commercial interests. PSL has become the survivor over time, with others falling into decay or atrophy. The diversity of internet applications and uses for PSL expanded rapidly, either former alternatives merging in, or new innovative uses evolved. This happened because it was the least awful, most comprehensive resource out there that was being maintained. That and the IANA list was not as comprehensive to reckognize valid vs invalid delegations under ccTLDs at the third or deeper level, and would not include CentralNic (there are others but I use them only as a brightline example of legitimate participants that should receive non-discriminatory treatment of strings) meet the real-world needs of the development community at large. And Currently: The pace of the new TLD introductions currently under way has most everyone in scaling PSL under the deployment rate that ICANN - and saw the benefit to the development community I fear this BoF is quite reactive and late phase work to address a real need for a list of extensions that enhances the IANA TLD list (co.uk, org,uk et al vs just UK) without prejudice for sub-domaining providers. I am currently fielding many requests from within the registry operators who want to understand why their new TLDs do not work from the start within applications / software NOW. ICANN has done some very light informational work around suggested practices, but I think if this group could arrive at a competent solution that covers the needs of the developer community which caused the thing to form in the first place, DBOUND might replace the PSL need in the developer community, gradually. I understand you have Gerv Marham from Mozilla in mind to participate. He is outstanding and I would further enhance his participation through mine as I have experience with PSL as well as exposure to the ICANN gTLD and ccTLD community of registry operators and DNS system, coupled with ongoing requests from within many of the community of developers or consumers of the PSL - so I understand many of the things that would attract current PSL consumers to make an adaptation to a different system. I would like to contribute my experience and time to help with DBOUND so that it could be a replacement that has a potential to be a legitimate and comprehensive replacement to PSL. I and the other maintainers of PSL would welcome a competent successor - we are not a point of resistance. In fact, we pragmatically view the PSL as the least awful, most comprehensive and frequently updated resource of its kind. It exists because there is not a viable alternative available. I also fear the work might lean too far towards forcing authority at the cost of viability as a PSL successor. One can look no farther than the depth and pace of DNSSEC adoption to identify the pace that an authoritative registry might implement a DNS based solution. The most important thing to consider about a successor would be to keep in mind that if the successor fails to meet the community needs/wants or has spotty adaptation by central authorities such as we see with the DNSSEC implementation pace or that of IPv6 transitions - I doubt the developers will migrate in the manner we'd all like to see, which would perpetuate the need for a resource that is maintained by the community. So, we have some challenges to address together towards a viable successor. I would like to help shape DBOUND into a viable alternative so that it might have some hope of traction. Thank you for including me in this discussion. -Jothan Jothan Frakes +1.206-355-0230 tel +1.206-201-6881 fax --001a11362cd427c87204f1b12364 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi-

Thank you for forming the DBOUND BoF.= =C2=A0I hope it will evolve into a working group. =C2=A0This is an area of= massive need within the developer community - and that need is exacerbated= by the rapid expansion underway with new TLDs from ICANN.

I am a lo= ng time volunteer with the Public Suffix List and want to be included in th= e discussions around DBOUND, as I have a substantial amount of exposure to = the pros and cons of it that would be helpful towards minimum requirements = of a successor from within the IETF, as well as a good understanding of the= needs/wants from the community.

Som= e background:
I have been active in the domain name industry = since the early 1990s. =C2=A0I was around to watch the challenges for devel= opers that work with internet domain names in 2001 when TLDs like INFO or M= USEUM appeared and didn't immediately function.=C2=A0

Most appl= ication developers used a static list at best or had very base logic about = a dot followed by 3 or fewer letters. =C2=A0This got more sophisticated ove= r time to reflect the subdelegations such as co.uk= , co.jp or com.au stubs and systems like C= entralNic's uk.com subdomains, but typica= lly followed a static list.

ICANN'= ;s glacial pace of introducing new TLDs over the 13 years that followed per= petuated the use of static lists.

Cookies a= nd security around cookies created the need for something that could keep p= ace with and map to the diversity of the ccTLD and subdomain space, and Jo = Hermans founded the PSL.

The PSL w= as among a number of different extension lists maintained by a variety of v= olunteers and commercial interests.

PSL has b= ecome the survivor over time, with others falling into decay or atrophy.

The diver= sity of internet applications and uses for PSL expanded rapidly, either for= mer alternatives merging in, or new innovative uses evolved.

This happ= ened because it was the least awful, most comprehensive resource out there = that was being maintained.

That and = the IANA list was not as comprehensive to reckognize valid vs invalid deleg= ations under ccTLDs at the third or deeper level, and would not include Cen= tralNic (there are others but I use them only as a brightline example of le= gitimate participants that should receive non-discriminatory treatment of s= trings) meet the real-world needs of the development community at large.

And Curre= ntly:
The pace of the new TLD introductions currently= under way has most everyone in scaling PSL under the deployment rate that = ICANN - and saw the benefit to the development community=C2=A0

I fear th= is BoF is quite reactive and late phase work to address a real need for a l= ist of extensions that enhances the IANA TLD list (co.uk, org,uk et al vs just UK) without prejudice for sub-domaining pr= oviders. =C2=A0

I am curr= ently fielding many requests from within the registry operators who want to= understand why their new TLDs do not work from the start within applicatio= ns / software NOW.

ICANN has= done some very light informational work around suggested practices, but I = think if this group could arrive at a competent solution that covers the ne= eds of the developer community which caused the thing to form in the first = place, DBOUND might replace the PSL need in the developer community, gradua= lly.

I u= nderstand you have Gerv Marham from Mozilla in mind to participate. =C2=A0H= e is outstanding and I would further enhance his participation through mine= as I have experience with PSL as well as exposure to the ICANN gTLD and cc= TLD community of registry operators and DNS system, coupled with ongoing re= quests from within many of the community of developers or consumers of the = PSL - so I understand many of the things that would attract current PSL con= sumers to make an adaptation to a different system.

I would l= ike to contribute my experience and time to help with DBOUND so that it cou= ld be a replacement that has a potential to be a legitimate and comprehensi= ve replacement to PSL.

I and the= other maintainers of PSL would welcome a competent successor - we are not = a point of resistance. =C2=A0In fact, we pragmatically view the PSL as the = least awful, most comprehensive and frequently updated resource of its kind= .

It exists= because there is not a viable alternative available.

I also fear the work migh= t lean too far towards forcing authority at the cost of viability as a PSL = successor. =C2=A0One can look no farther than the depth and pace of DNSSEC = adoption to identify the pace that an authoritative registry might implemen= t a DNS based solution.

The most important thing = to consider about a successor would be to keep in mind that if the successo= r fails to meet the community needs/wants or has spotty adaptation by centr= al authorities such as we see with the DNSSEC implementation pace or that o= f IPv6 transitions - I doubt the developers will migrate in the manner we&#= 39;d all like to see, which would perpetuate the need for a resource that i= s maintained by the community.

So, we ha= ve some challenges to address together towards a viable successor. =C2=A0I = would like to help shape DBOUND into a viable alternative so that it might = have some hope of traction.

Thank you= for including me in this discussion.

-Jothan

Jothan Frakes
+1.206-355-0230= tel
+1.206-201-6881 fax
--001a11362cd427c87204f1b12364-- From olaf@NLnetLabs.nl Fri Feb 7 02:19:10 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 343D51A05ED for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 02:19:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.441 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.441 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 FZYjZXUh-_ra for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 02:19:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from open.nlnetlabs.nl (open.nlnetlabs.nl [IPv6:2001:7b8:206:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7ED981A01FB for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 02:19:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from [213.154.224.101] (dhcp-101.nlnetlabs.nl [213.154.224.101]) (authenticated bits=0) by open.nlnetlabs.nl (8.14.7/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s17AJ2oC013050 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 7 Feb 2014 11:19:04 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from olaf@NLnetLabs.nl) Authentication-Results: open.nlnetlabs.nl; dmarc=none header.from=NLnetLabs.nl DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.8.3 open.nlnetlabs.nl s17AJ2oC013050 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=nlnetlabs.nl; s=default; t=1391768345; bh=nMXcNHeJLTtGN7cRFdGoYTyVfTwHALqtxakD+y4G1ZA=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References; b=BD9+HKsyelpLGYOgDOjL4FCSLx5g66exl0AWK82aIzxhWHnS5fKZ5rb8YyUAmSs+x RPiIjE4uk3JmhlGhdrOz1ysjI2K24BywXAqByaiNrclMHTdtwGerDewQZxB/YqVU3b A5JoeBX1vO82AbEwQprPdz376H+FM4VSDO4wQAtM= X-Authentication-Warning: open.nlnetlabs.nl: Host dhcp-101.nlnetlabs.nl [213.154.224.101] claimed to be [213.154.224.101] From: "Olaf Kolkman" To: "Jothan Frakes" Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 11:19:01 +0100 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=_MailMate_F305294D-9186-4951-9C56-1D1F1E9B36DB_="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Mailer: MailMate (1.7.2r3905) X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (open.nlnetlabs.nl [213.154.224.1]); Fri, 07 Feb 2014 11:19:04 +0100 (CET) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 02:20:17 -0800 Cc: marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca, dbound@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dbound] Request to participate in DBOUND discussions X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 10:19:10 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 3156 and 4880). --=_MailMate_F305294D-9186-4951-9C56-1D1F1E9B36DB_= Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 6 Feb 2014, at 0:23, Jothan Frakes wrote: > I would like to contribute my experience and time to help with DBOUND s= o that it could be a replacement that has a potential to be a legitimate = and comprehensive replacement to PSL. Jothan, You are most welcome. = I think that at this moment we'd derive most value from your (and anybody= else's) contributions if it culminates in a comprehensive problem statem= ent. --Olaf --=_MailMate_F305294D-9186-4951-9C56-1D1F1E9B36DB_= Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin) Comment: Signature creating using GPG Tools. iEYEARECAAYFAlL0sxYACgkQtN/ca3YJIofb1wCfc/8sgpSCQT9UZ3ROB+DB8LLU 0foAoIKJWSby2wacxuKpvPeMcAejbzIP =dhvK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=_MailMate_F305294D-9186-4951-9C56-1D1F1E9B36DB_=-- From michele@blacknight.com Fri Feb 7 02:36:37 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04DC61A05FD for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 02:36:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.699 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, J_CHICKENPOX_46=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-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 anrF30iHTuT0 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 02:36:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from exchange.blacknight.ie (exchange.blacknight.ie [81.17.243.252]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF1DB1A05F9 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 02:36:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from BK-EXCHMBX01.blacknight.local ([fe80::a9c8:c46:8f4d:f8c8]) by bkexchhubcas01.blacknight.local ([fe80::994e:1bb8:df56:f591%15]) with mapi id 14.02.0342.003; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 10:36:30 +0000 From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight To: "dbound@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Another newb Thread-Index: Ac8j8BZA9D3IPtojQ2+e5mPxbdtGRw== Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 10:36:28 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-IE, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [89.101.219.118] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [Dbound] Another newb X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 10:36:37 -0000 Hi all I thought I'd join this discussion as well, as I'm interested in the implic= ations of it. As a registrar and hosting provider I've an interest in seeing how the DNS = is handled as it expands Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From jabley@hopcount.ca Fri Feb 7 06:08:46 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 918BD1A1F3D for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 06:08:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-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 QqgJ0VuEAdDM for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 06:08:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ie0-x236.google.com (mail-ie0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22EBB1A1F1F for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 06:08:45 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ie0-f182.google.com with SMTP id lx4so1638892iec.13 for ; Fri, 07 Feb 2014 06:08:45 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hopcount.ca; s=google; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=d1flVIBcHgwoAZ0USr6tcdWgBJ3qwX243lI1Xvn8ie0=; b=mJuLI/1kycd1//VnynI/9e94Lp9OHNKPbHpyo7SbsZSVOG14VlcN8xIUmb9McDSkr4 kFA/MVZVL4/kvym03pcghOnrg8G5BA/1uzQH3pCqQRv9X0tYdhsJoAC3YBZWeaBOKSr7 guTBBuJUvJM5O1FaQuZGdR5U7v9Z9cjhnWKdQ= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references:to; bh=d1flVIBcHgwoAZ0USr6tcdWgBJ3qwX243lI1Xvn8ie0=; b=Gp/RweMrougqkiv0glDHHHN0HQyThbszPvlIeT7qWed3N4FEbXK3MlmzvQtHA8328W A7qMGfszclsmfcxpcZwdzlueDS9h9HC/2aeMCDCbVaXGOJS9euKWFy8VinyTl0DYNP/c E6XJGUv4V/EYu66tzcPoVT1ZMz/HifKn6BuDfu2lzgzYsvj00/zAZoEjejPI+8SZ5YBM gn+ajNN7a15J4nlGKnEWsQdAkqtjNRANwZbOvztmNEaVdN0OSUGZ2a6S5VF0n3+r6qFF FJSfNX8Iy+Glx6Rjx3+PoHGqbuQzL3cjwDHX5XPwrv4XNe7A2CnmQMlZvGJb9ScW6Wm8 kfKQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlyc5DsGIvRlJe5CJoG+cbMuGxK/WsXd6E1kDA7au+sNGyK2nSPA8Udd30QGVArxpVuSPVY X-Received: by 10.43.49.132 with SMTP id va4mr583780icb.79.1391782125020; Fri, 07 Feb 2014 06:08:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:4900:1042:1:e459:1123:2be9:f4eb? ([2001:4900:1042:1:e459:1123:2be9:f4eb]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id kt2sm12465799igb.1.2014.02.07.06.08.42 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 07 Feb 2014 06:08:43 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_EBB67038-F8A6-4AA7-A160-5A249B8735DB"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\)) From: Joe Abley In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 09:08:40 -0500 Message-Id: <9FAC332C-7D62-480A-8046-820C96341CA5@hopcount.ca> References: To: Olaf Kolkman X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827) Cc: marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca, Jothan Frakes , dbound@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dbound] Request to participate in DBOUND discussions X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 14:08:46 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_EBB67038-F8A6-4AA7-A160-5A249B8735DB Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On 2014-02-07, at 05:19, Olaf Kolkman wrote: > I think that at this moment we'd derive most value from your (and = anybody else's) contributions if it culminates in a comprehensive = problem statement. One thing that came up the other day whilst watching a demo of a = proof-of-concept tool for data collection on nameservers was making = on-the-fly, automated decisions about how to reduce a set of QNAMEs to a = sensible bucket for maintaining counters (as well as distinguishing = between typos and new gTLDs we haven't heard of this week yet). I think the general question of the sensible label boundary to infer an = administrative separation is most usually asked in the context of user = interfaces and cookie policy in browsers, but it has a useful part to = play in operational measurement, too. Joe --Apple-Mail=_EBB67038-F8A6-4AA7-A160-5A249B8735DB Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iEYEARECAAYFAlL06OgACgkQNI8MvYZSOixqAwCgv8aMJjh39m/Vk0gVm3a5D/E5 PMoAoMr7qarqN8eRJe/WaB0Cd2+rrjHA =popi -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_EBB67038-F8A6-4AA7-A160-5A249B8735DB-- From jothan@gmail.com Fri Feb 7 11:51:19 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D41D1ACCDF for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 11:51:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.301 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MANGLED_REGSTR=2.3, 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 RkOgyYg4yrqs for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 11:51:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-vb0-x229.google.com (mail-vb0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c02::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62DD41ACC87 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 11:51:17 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-vb0-f41.google.com with SMTP id g10so3049181vbg.0 for ; Fri, 07 Feb 2014 11:51:17 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=+ERhmf43Q7mw479fEwTW0h0GhaSYMDLl2jFcBilwAbs=; b=nLybP/UVoJbyJtVCbpgB36mml45X6gW/IkCBTGNR5m52vgJFlBYTtT+cJkLYOZidsl PWlQ2ltEb8R6sYNRV1Y6nX9/b2Dzf8YJ4af+oVXyw6KHWafxycqVDpMqG/Adjfay3L6s /o+q9oSB0wzZESYQmiPv4fnzzX5JqB6dOKUHnmeYX/U/5fykErST5dUwbItH4vCFQ6es DA4rAtrLU+Z1iDTG7xGc7LTMAPJsUD6W5W+XSZjU2rFJdZI9VtiBgghYMYpPHrWpAOE8 g6cL78yO868Eke3hscxwnAMhSVYov/6E3usOuZKQPQNtYmvXvq9t7UaEH5Wvgeo8H4TD A8ZQ== X-Received: by 10.58.161.46 with SMTP id xp14mr1530389veb.37.1391802676952; Fri, 07 Feb 2014 11:51:16 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.58.74.71 with HTTP; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 11:50:35 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <9FAC332C-7D62-480A-8046-820C96341CA5@hopcount.ca> References: <9FAC332C-7D62-480A-8046-820C96341CA5@hopcount.ca> From: Jothan Frakes Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 11:50:35 -0800 Message-ID: To: Joe Abley Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b6dc5a42842cf04f1d650b1 Cc: Olaf Kolkman , "marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca" , "dbound@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Dbound] Request to participate in DBOUND discussions X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 19:51:19 -0000 --047d7b6dc5a42842cf04f1d650b1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =E2=80=8BHi Joe- =E2=80=8B I realize we might be at an early stage =E2=80=8B (pre BoF)=E2=80=8B , but =E2=80=8Bcompletely =E2=80=8B we should "wish list" this a bit... I think there is an opportunity in formation of the problem statement that we identify potential uses like you are describing and capture them in a manner that organizes them into buckets. I think we will have different consumers of a resource seeking different things, looking at the other internet drafts and "case history". =E2=80=8BHere is a start at header, high level and low level uses of the st= ring as well as some of the data that I have been asked about or thought should be present inside of these entries of DBOUNDs. It is certainly not exhaustive and could certainly benefit from others adding on. 1. Administrative / Authoritative Records 1.1 Version 1.2 Timestamp 1.3 URL of Unified DIFF from previous =E2=80=8B1.4 Changelog Synopsis=E2=80=8B =E2=80=8B And here is some of the use cases and potential data =E2=80=8B2. =E2=80=8B Name apex aggregate uses: (could use collapsed form of the list =E2=80=8B =E2=80=8B ) =E2=80=8B2.1=E2=80=8B UI form entry / programming validation 2.2=E2=80=8B Mailer / security validation =E2=80=8B2.3=E2=80=8B log / parsing / monitoring =E2=80=8B Record level use (detailed info per apex =E2=80=8B / "registry"=E2=80=8B ) =E2=80=8B3.record=E2=80=8B =E2=80=8B3.1=E2=80=8B apex behavior =E2=80=8B3.1.1 Cookies =E2=80=8B (browser security) =E2=80=8B 3.1.2 DNSSEC Active + ZSK/KSK if deemed appropriate 3.1.3 "official" sub-apex(es) (ie .foo would identify bar.foo and kung.foo as 'official' / explicit subs) 3.2=E2=80=8B Zone Whois replacement - Self management of contact information =E2=80=8B3.2.1 Zone contacts, address of responsible part=E2=80=8B y=E2=80=8B =E2=80=8B 3.3 "Registry" detail Resource records =E2=80=8B3.3.1=E2=80=8B URI and ports / style of Whois server for 'zone' =E2=80=8B (ie port 43, whois.foo.hostname; web port 80, www.address.of.that/plus/subpath; REST JSON etc )=E2=80=8B =E2=80=8B3.3.2=E2=80=8B "registry" website URL(s) =E2=80=8B 3.3.2.1 Primary "registry" URL=E2=80=8B =E2=80=8B 3.3.2.2 Additional "registry" Resources (ie TWITTER, @=E2=80=8B= twitterhandle; RSS, url.to.feed.address.example/atom.rss; etc) =E2=80=8B3.3.2.3 =E2=80=8B"registry" =E2=80=8B Policies =E2=80=8B3.3.2.3.1 =E2=80=8B =E2=80=8BSubstring "r egistration =E2=80=8B"=E2=80=8B =E2=80=8B 3.3.2.3.1.1 =E2=80=8BAllowed =E2=80=8B Sub domain length =E2=80=8B(s)=E2=80=8B =E2=80=8B =E2=80=8B =E2=80=8B 3.3.2. =E2=80=8B3 .1.1 =E2=80=8B.1=E2=80=8B Min =E2=80=8B=E2=80=8B =E2=80=8B =E2=80=8B =E2=80=8B=E2=80=8B 3.3.2. =E2=80=8B3 .1.1 =E2=80=8B.2=E2=80=8B M =E2=80=8Bax =E2=80=8B =E2=80=8B =E2=80=8B 3.3.2. =E2=80=8B3 .1.1 =E2=80=8B.3=E2=80=8B Explicitly Disallowed=E2=80=8B =E2=80=8B Lengths (ie no 2 char)=E2=80=8B =E2=80=8B=E2=80=8B 3.3.2.3.1.2 =E2=80=8B =E2=80=8B Regex of allowed strings 3.3.2.3.1.2 Disallowed Strings 3.3.2.3.1.2.1 static list of restricted / unavailable strings 3.3.2.3.1.2.2 regex of disallowed strings =E2=80=8B3.3.2.3.2=E2=80=8B sub domain IDN support details =E2=80=8B =E2=80=8B=E2=80=8B 3.3.2. =E2=80=8B3 .2=E2=80=8B =E2=80=8B.1 =E2=80=8B URI of allowed characters =E2=80=8B =E2=80=8B 3.3.2. =E2=80=8B3 .2=E2=80=8B =E2=80=8B.2 URI of IDN policy, etc =E2=80=8B3.3.2.3.3 =E2=80=8B "parent relationship" =E2=80=8B (would identify if tied to parent, could be paired with 3.1.3 of = parent to validate)=E2=80=8B 3.3.2.3.4 Allowed RTYPEs in DNS zone (would be explicit list, and what is not listed is disallowed - could be overridden in child zones by that child's sub-apex entry) 3.4 entry last change 3.4.1 timestamp 3.4.2 updated by 3.4.3 validated by =E2=80=8BJust thought I'd get it started... =E2=80=8BI'd welcome others' questions, consolidations, or friendly amendme= nts, as I am certain there are more. =E2=80=8BMost consumers I am exposed to would have a focus on 3 & 3.1.1 or= =E2=80=8B3 & some mix of elements within 3.3.2.3, but more are looking for a mix and match of things within the sub-elements of 3. =E2=80=8B-Jothan=E2=80=8B On Friday, February 7, 2014, Joe Abley wrote: > > On 2014-02-07, at 05:19, Olaf Kolkman wrote: > > > I think that at this moment we'd derive most value from your (and > anybody else's) contributions if it culminates in a comprehensive problem > statement. > > One thing that came up the other day whilst watching a demo of a > proof-of-concept tool for data collection on nameservers was making > on-the-fly, automated decisions about how to reduce a set of QNAMEs to a > sensible bucket for maintaining counters (as well as distinguishing betwe= en > typos and new gTLDs we haven't heard of this week yet). > > I think the general question of the sensible label boundary to infer an > administrative separation is most usually asked in the context of user > interfaces and cookie policy in browsers, but it has a useful part to pla= y > in operational measurement, too. > > > Joe > --047d7b6dc5a42842cf04f1d650b1 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=E2=80=8BHi Joe= - =C2=A0=C2=A0

=E2=80=8BI realize we might be at an early stage
=E2=80=8B (pre BoF)=E2=80=8B
, but
=E2=80=8Bcompletely =E2=80=8B
we should "wish list"= this a bit...

I think there is an opportunity in formation of the problem statement that = we identify potential uses like you are describing and capture them in a ma= nner that organizes them into buckets.

I think we will have different consumers of a resource = seeking different things, looking at the other internet=C2=A0drafts and=C2= =A0"case history".

=E2=80=8BHere is a start at header, high level and low level uses of the st= ring as well as some of the data that I have been asked about or thought sh= ould be present inside of these entries of DBOUNDs. =C2=A0It is certainly n= ot exhaustive and could certainly benefit from others adding on.

1. Administrative / Authoritative Records
1.1 Version=C2=A0=
1.2 Timestamp
1.3 URL of Unified DIFF from previous
=E2=80=8B1.4 Changelog Synopsis=E2=80=8B
=E2=80=8B
And here is some of the use cases and potential data

=E2=80=8B2. =E2=80=8B
Name=C2= =A0apex aggregate uses: (could use collapsed form of the list
=E2=80=8B =E2=80=8B
)
=C2=A0
=E2=80=8B2.1=E2=80=8B
=C2=A0UI form e= ntry / programming validation
=C2=A0
2.2=E2=80=8B
=C2=A0Mailer / security=C2=A0validation
=C2=A0<= div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-size:small;display:inline;font-fa= mily:verdana,sans-serif">=E2=80=8B2.3=E2=80=8B
=C2=A0log /=C2=A0parsi= ng / monitoring

=E2=80=8B
Record level use (detailed in= fo=C2=A0per apex
=E2=80=8B / "registry"=E2=80=8B
)
=E2=80=8B3.record=E2=80=8B
=C2=A0
=E2=80=8B3.1=E2=80=8B
=C2=A0 apex behavior=C2=A0
=E2=80=8B3.1.1 Cookies =E2=80=8B
(browser security)
=E2=80=8B=C2=A0
3.1.2 DNSSEC Active + ZSK/KSK if deemed appropriate
3.1.3 "official" sub-apex(es) =C2=A0(ie .foo w= ould identify bar.foo and kung.foo as 'official' / explicit subs)
=C2=A0
3.2=E2=80=8B
=C2=A0Zone Whois replacement -= Self management of contact information=C2=A0
=C2=A0
=E2=80=8B3.2.1 Zone=C2=A0
contacts, address of responsible part=E2=80=8B
= y=E2=80=8B
=E2=80=8B 3.3
=C2=A0"Registry"=C2= =A0detail=C2=A0Resource records=C2=A0
=C2=A0 =C2=A0
=E2=80=8B3.3.1=E2=80=8B
=C2=A0 =C2=A0URI and ports / style of=C2=A0Wh= ois server for 'zone'
=E2=80=8B (ie port 4= 3, whois.foo.hostname; web port 80, www.address.of.that/plus/subpath; REST = JSON etc )=E2=80=8B
=C2=A0 =C2=A0
=E2=80=8B3.3.2=E2=80=8B
= =C2=A0 =C2=A0"registry" website URL(s)
=E2=80=8B =C2=A0 3.3.2.1 Primary "registry" URL=E2=80=8B
=E2=80=8B =C2=A0 3.3.2.2 Additional "registry" Resources = (ie TWITTER, @=E2=80=8Btwitterhandle; RSS, url.to.feed.address.example/atom= .rss; etc)
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0
=E2=80=8B3.3.2.3=C2=A0=C2=A0
=E2=80=8B"registry" =E2=80=8B
Policies
=C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0
= =E2=80=8B3.3.2.3.1 =E2=80=8B
=E2=80=8B"=E2=80=8B
=E2=80=8B
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0
3.3.2.3.1.1=C2=A0= =E2=80=8BAllowed =E2=80=8B
Sub domain length
=E2=80=8B(s)=E2=80=8B
=E2=80=8B
=E2=80=8B
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0
=E2=80=8B
3.3.2.
=E2=80=8B3
.1.1
= =E2=80=8B.1=E2=80=8B
=C2=A0Min
=C2=A0=E2=80=8B=E2=80= =8B
=E2=80=8B
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0
=E2=80=8B
=E2=80=8B=E2=80=8B
3.3.2.
= =E2=80=8B3
.1.1
= =E2=80=8B.2=E2=80=8B
=C2=A0M
=E2=80=8Bax
= =E2=80=8B =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0
= =E2=80=8B
=E2=80=8B
3.3.2.
=E2=80=8B3
.1.1
=E2=80=8B.3=E2=80=8B
=C2=A0= Explicitly Disallowed=E2=80=8B
=E2=80=8B Lengths (ie no 2 char)=E2=80=8B

=E2=80=8B=E2=80=8B=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0
3.3.2.3.1.2 =E2=80=8B
=E2=80=8B
Reg= ex of allowed strings
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0= 3.3.2.3.1.2 Disallowed Strings
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A03.3.2.3.1.2.1 static = list of restricted / unavailable strings
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 =C2=A03.3.2.3.1.2.2 regex of disallowed strings
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0
=E2=80= =8B3.3.2.3.2=E2=80=8B
=C2=A0sub domain=C2=A0IDN support details
<= div>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0
=E2=80=8B
=E2=80=8B=E2=80=8B
3.3.= 2.
=E2=80=8B3
.2=E2=80=8B
=E2= =80=8B.1 =E2=80=8B
URI of allowed characters
=C2=A0 = =C2=A0 =C2=A0
=E2=80=8B
=E2=80=8B
3.3.2.
=E2=80=8B3
.2=E2=80=8B
=E2=80=8B.2=C2= =A0
URI of IDN policy, etc
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0
=E2=80=8B3.3.2.3.3 =E2=80=8B
"parent relationship"
=E2=80=8B (would identify if tied to paren= t, could be paired with 3.1.3 of parent to validate)=E2=80=8B
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 3.3.2.3= .4 Allowed RTYPEs in DNS zone (would be explicit list, and what is not list= ed is disallowed - could be overridden in child zones by that child's s= ub-apex entry)
3.4 entry last change=
3.4.1 timestamp
= 3.4.2 updated by
3.4.3 validated by

=E2=80=8BJust thought I'd get it started...=C2=A0
=E2=80=8BI'd= welcome others' questions, consolidations, or friendly amendments, as = I am certain there are more.

=E2=80=8BMost consumers I am = exposed to would have a focus on =C2=A03 & 3.1.1 or =E2=80=8B3 & so= me mix of elements within 3.3.2.3, but more are looking for a mix and match= of things within the sub-elements of 3.

=E2=80=8B-Jothan=E2=80=8B
<= br>

On Friday, February 7, 2014, Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca> wrote:=

On 2014-02-07, at 05:19, Olaf Kolkman <olaf@NLnetLabs.nl> wrote:

> I think that at this moment we'd derive most value from your (and = anybody else's) contributions if it culminates in a comprehensive probl= em statement.

One thing that came up the other day whilst watching a demo of a proof-of-c= oncept tool for data collection on nameservers was making on-the-fly, autom= ated decisions about how to reduce a set of QNAMEs to a sensible bucket for= maintaining counters (as well as distinguishing between typos and new gTLD= s we haven't heard of this week yet).

I think the general question of the sensible label boundary to infer an adm= inistrative separation is most usually asked in the context of user interfa= ces and cookie policy in browsers, but it has a useful part to play in oper= ational measurement, too.


Joe
--047d7b6dc5a42842cf04f1d650b1-- From jabley@hopcount.ca Fri Feb 7 12:11:06 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F22EF1A0122 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 12:11:05 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-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 MMRLLRkjSe-n for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 12:11:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ie0-x235.google.com (mail-ie0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BD751A0454 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 12:11:03 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ie0-f181.google.com with SMTP id to1so1996362ieb.12 for ; Fri, 07 Feb 2014 12:11:03 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hopcount.ca; s=google; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=JhfUEpHgBvozhB+MjKszFj10y/3xq7PJ1SRVkoB3oCU=; b=dK44RHEd/i9nYvQvEyxepknE+hqJyAJ02sCSaNdcBBVCtCUJQ0gHuUXVtZq5j9ysUj oC03nap05BKzXUpzxYS0f+EFtfrHgNMvJZvcuQwBt/4tpWkLI56gIl1RFxmqR5nfixW1 +ylZPDkfFZwZ4K4mH/DJlXf04jZ5njVJAPj5E= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references:to; bh=JhfUEpHgBvozhB+MjKszFj10y/3xq7PJ1SRVkoB3oCU=; b=XM6F4mkMRrjYvlm3M7+UYEhqOHnoVp6QOpDVFfodkOsKTe2kdyjY6SeGao0mvxlExA q08Kbq6GbOqgbvwLfodXuDbwZe+VFNLPXxkF+Lyrxok6+SlQnf4DvKkxisWt/JzZnNIS x0ec/rV+ZPPEK7kpEq4wZ15OeNE4NlG+sUgNyvqJQ0OV5DCI8Nui5cTv1NTJuBlqez9L Lx/q0eOn/x7JdPD+LMb8Dd7GkZqVl5UYU0wLs2o1vi1qBiWu1Dh2TTapuNIl+EtA0BfH kRitl3resGW4aLUeTvmCkT5dNNhguET2kRIWe3vVSrFx7JEnVji9285vz41Zxa+39jGB HB8Q== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmxgYTVonhQDPQ8qIgVCzJrdKFMseJC6YBpY9vYFbmtVnIm/8X6ntUzFnHodExTJfQJ14Ph X-Received: by 10.50.159.194 with SMTP id xe2mr1871627igb.13.1391803862899; Fri, 07 Feb 2014 12:11:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:4900:1042:1:94eb:1bb3:5e14:75f3? ([2001:4900:1042:1:94eb:1bb3:5e14:75f3]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ft2sm12980667igb.5.2014.02.07.12.11.01 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 07 Feb 2014 12:11:01 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_9FF769F9-8F60-4BFC-BC4A-973B16F9433C"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\)) From: Joe Abley In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 15:10:59 -0500 Message-Id: References: <9FAC332C-7D62-480A-8046-820C96341CA5@hopcount.ca> To: Jothan Frakes X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827) Cc: Olaf Kolkman , "marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca" , "dbound@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Dbound] Request to participate in DBOUND discussions X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 20:11:06 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_9FF769F9-8F60-4BFC-BC4A-973B16F9433C Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 On 2014-02-07, at 14:50, Jothan Frakes wrote: > =E2=80=8BI realize we might be at an early stage =E2=80=8B (pre = BoF)=E2=80=8B, but =E2=80=8Bcompletely =E2=80=8Bwe should "wish list" = this a bit... Your wishlist looks like you're assuming a solution that looks a lot = like a better-managed and better-structured public suffix list. Is the solution space wide enough to consider other options, e.g. = publication of policy that communicates the same information in the form = of data in the DNS, published as resource records? I'm not saying that one is better than the other (or that the right = solution requires just one approach, versus more than one), but it'd be = nice to understand the part (if any) different such approaches could = play as part of a working group discussion rather than as a pre-baked = assumption. [For illustrative purposes only, just to better explain the question = above, not jumping to implementation assumptions, I mean something like (in the root zone) . IN SOA ... . IN PSL whois.iana.org. "http://www.root-servers.org/" (in the COM zone) COM. IN SOA ... COM. IN PSL whois.crsnic.net. "http://www.verisigninc.com/" (etc) i.e. RRSets in the DNS at a zone apex that indicates the presence of a = registry-like administrative boundary, using the scaffolding already = present in the DNS to do versioning, cryptographic signatures, etc. No = doubt any real candidate mechanism would be better fleshed out than the = above, no need to point out the need for extra RDATA, etc, etc.] Joe --Apple-Mail=_9FF769F9-8F60-4BFC-BC4A-973B16F9433C Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iEYEARECAAYFAlL1PdMACgkQNI8MvYZSOixG4QCfSYu4ra1iolIZb9hZeK0s4W+S wp4AoLSPIUXUVpBfdqA+WFm46ZWOt9rp =eIlC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_9FF769F9-8F60-4BFC-BC4A-973B16F9433C-- From edward.lewis@icann.org Tue Feb 11 16:15:40 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 320031A0791 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 16:15:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.048 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.048 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548] 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 aOO62pfX4JP9 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 16:15:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXPFE100-2.exc.icann.org (expfe100-2.exc.icann.org [64.78.22.237]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CD631A0769 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 16:15:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.232]) by EXPFE100-2.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.237]) with mapi; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 16:15:37 -0800 From: Edward Lewis To: "dbound@ietf.org" Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 16:15:36 -0800 Thread-Topic: Starting point Thread-Index: AQHPJ4eNx/Ah2ly+30aANoHfp57U6w== Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Edward Lewis Subject: [Dbound] Starting point X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 00:15:40 -0000 I've been thinking about this problem for quite a while. I've never been a= fan of making the zone delegation points apparent in the DNS but I do unde= rstand the need to draw a bounds around the set of zones under one manageme= nt realm. One of the parts of the DNS I've always had a hard time explaining to newco= mers is the difference between a "zone" and a "domain" and anyone familiar = with the DNS protocol can probably relate to that. That two zones may be a= dministered by the same person or by two independent organizations makes is= all the more annoying. The first aspect I'd like to nail down is - what's the purpose of exposing = the "meaningful" zone cuts. I get that there is value but, what's the goal= . For the sake of knowing whether solutions answer the need, it helps to k= now what is needed. The second aspect to examine is whether this is in-band to the DNS, out of = band, or if there is just a "hook" - a reference DNS RR type that points to= another service. Jumping to a conclusion, which I know is a mistake, is that I have a sneaki= ng suspicion that this will need to be out of band. In as much as the publ= ic suffix list is out of band, I believe (and I emphasize that word) that t= rying to put a definitive statement about a zone's "intentions" or "relatio= n to its parent/child" will not be the best approach. This comes from my w= ondering - "if this is about security, what if the zone's apex is lying." I'll be interested to see how this develops. From johnl@iecc.com Tue Feb 11 17:18:33 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 554F51A060D for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 17:18:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.542 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.542 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] 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 oGdDiAdtVEmr for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 17:18:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E401E1A0308 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 17:18:31 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 90718 invoked from network); 12 Feb 2014 01:18:31 -0000 Received: from miucha.iecc.com (64.57.183.18) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 12 Feb 2014 01:18:31 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=52facbe7.xn--i8sz2z.k1402; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=niB9rSm6bCvI8wI0I5Vxy4nsOayM+Z8N2IkxE/lk3zk=; b=e7wv79P4IR+Sl5JHC2TYObi0MiCup1AB60z97DFC+mh31tk27GKaIBl+BXQaIXNR6mF4JEiiFDQ3LsGk0TtCPDg/q4Vi5enGPy+aXwOdTzAMH5O3iLEhZ44peA6OqLJEGBkTc572aZ5tXSnexrvdJmVwF7O4bwU4r+aac4zX8dlkCKvrbnnzEK7RVOSnoYC5CRyJRBddHfJ+uLqJT38KYMTnRoQ8Aay2hMcfkC9D24XnPKYl87uEupd5JvGadHVN DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=52facbe7.xn--i8sz2z.k1402; bh=niB9rSm6bCvI8wI0I5Vxy4nsOayM+Z8N2IkxE/lk3zk=; b=AwzotRU/ZQpr9HFiyaJ4DRnVkmXyZyKxnGKty7tDAq0K9jVxysBtdIKKQ1mS3RF8iA+Th7CX8bu0/tmS/j2nAvT2IVSCW74h1dLdtCY34WhFFZjOPtFHQoQ/b9eqRtHUoPxF8zBH96hmAA69yyWCjDT5JznoPkD2k6EC7byPuhH5xjJXv2Venqi3HktuSeNDI2mart883jAV+EdsldMEWQfE4IoxTo5ZaSTYBkm8DW1T1n/7xHznofT5574aV+lk Date: 12 Feb 2014 01:18:08 -0000 Message-ID: <20140212011808.69851.qmail@joyce.lan> From: "John Levine" To: dbound@ietf.org In-Reply-To: Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit Cc: edward.lewis@icann.org Subject: Re: [Dbound] Starting point X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 01:18:33 -0000 These are all good questions. >Jumping to a conclusion, which I know is a mistake, is that I have a sneaking suspicion that this will need to be out of >band. You're probably right for a variety of reasons, including that it seems impractical to ask DNS operators to put a new RR at every name for which they want to say it's inside or outside some boundary. My I-D (at least some versions of it) has a strawman where the boundary stuff is in the DNS but in a parallel hierarchy underneath each TLD which makes it relatively easy to cover subtrees with wildcards, to get coverage similar to what the PSL provides now. From olaf@NLnetLabs.nl Tue Feb 11 23:58:57 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DF741A082E for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 23:58:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -99.054 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.054 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 IkrJjgWK_Ym1 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 23:58:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from open.nlnetlabs.nl (open.nlnetlabs.nl [IPv6:2001:7b8:206:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDEC91A0876 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 23:58:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from luchtfiets.local (peer.kolkman.org [82.95.132.144]) (authenticated bits=0) by open.nlnetlabs.nl (8.14.7/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s1C7wosr016738 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 08:58:51 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from olaf@NLnetLabs.nl) Authentication-Results: open.nlnetlabs.nl; dmarc=none header.from=NLnetLabs.nl DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.8.3 open.nlnetlabs.nl s1C7wosr016738 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=nlnetlabs.nl; s=default; t=1392191932; bh=ddi4KPs8BqbNfryPUDi9x9XG8ItYrDVmmaYnKHK5wG0=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=ZuDqri5tz2p2MWuCa4gKxf+fdd1V5/+785BJ7gmbPqrlR4VxKv1QknQolwwqB7f9t 1ROQ8o1pCm8unMtbs0kXRyjje8/uRmvhxHcffh31XGhOBhdSNA53Ffvt0PNr/cTinR jtwC4Cgkh3kCcm7yGMr0otBCQBBQ86lVIQwEdrg8= X-Authentication-Warning: open.nlnetlabs.nl: Host peer.kolkman.org [82.95.132.144] claimed to be luchtfiets.local Message-ID: <52FB29B6.6000409@NLnetLabs.nl> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 08:58:46 +0100 From: "Olaf M. Kolkman" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dbound@ietf.org References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="crnhJ5qRPvrNJfJhjRtJn5b09Tb0lpUPl" X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (open.nlnetlabs.nl [213.154.224.1]); Wed, 12 Feb 2014 08:58:51 +0100 (CET) Subject: Re: [Dbound] Starting point X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 07:58:57 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --crnhJ5qRPvrNJfJhjRtJn5b09Tb0lpUPl Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 12-02-14 01:15, Edward Lewis wrote: > I've been thinking about this problem for quite a while. I've never be= en a fan of making the zone delegation points apparent in the DNS but I d= o understand the need to draw a bounds around the set of zones under one = management realm. >=20 > One of the parts of the DNS I've always had a hard time explaining to n= ewcomers is the difference between a "zone" and a "domain" and anyone fam= iliar with the DNS protocol can probably relate to that. That two zones = may be administered by the same person or by two independent organization= s makes is all the more annoying. >=20 > The first aspect I'd like to nail down is - what's the purpose of expos= ing the "meaningful" zone cuts. I get that there is value but, what's th= e goal. For the sake of knowing whether solutions answer the need, it he= lps to know what is needed. Ignoring the engineering that follows. Ed, You seem to focus on the managerial areas in the DNS (the zones, In RR-terms starting at a SOA and ending at some delegation NS). Is there a requirement to have even finer, or broader level of control? Let me use the word sphere for that. Is there a requirement to work with spheres that could be a subset of a zone or a set of various zones in several domains? I have no idea if or why one would need such concept, if we frantically need to look for requirements then not, but if there are some obvious used cases, then it is probably good to document those. --Olaf --crnhJ5qRPvrNJfJhjRtJn5b09Tb0lpUPl 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 v2.0.22 (Darwin) Comment: Signature creating using GPG Tools. Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJS+ym3AAoJEFRqER47aqpknbAQAJAICWRk4/Eqy0CUhgDaRTpS EVU3FmKBW9sYl2WeKeHVH0pJXmfixb79+QNMP9pFLWycA8AfmC2vo98tLT2Ckbyg eagBy48xfbSa82H3kbIB9LDtuRox4cRQY4lISN4K/ZMuqzTYf8COZ9UrNGkk20Vx y8rfGfc5JFgxw6VO51jlQj7At4mWXGAIYJOCmVDtoyk/JwmczBsMLG6hCTZrHsiF sE4D4ZHoMHR+/6hocnLz4XiKlszCb4l1vF71LEzAY6TQDVfXVJNpNiAwdcCRfkQX LgAAz20JVuiWtLPT2OUmhXTRZ6FvdY3zwwiseeMM6EJDcqpYzbLvUAifhgHacAKZ oJxURAybkZ6X1Ye4lJwiIcjBWOcWRiLMJlcH+ZLk5HMtOjiFYakXsjjcq56QG4eW nZ6aGrW4vIwGrK/OCP29kv2J7FInkNYEGlLL8BlAr4IhT2PKwSDECPIrBV8c7L4O kb/MTocQH4S5TG4UXfS1b/lZtq/55J1DMbKfbyzCPN62DIlfxzVWoEOKCZn5FiTD A47Z6ZoJhq/q1ezcHN+FjcaK4Zm5uQdsdzb9y2p4TrfLhoQpk4slFmvGzpJ+eWIF Z3E7clIv1pO9lMxbl0jiZRr/Px61/ObmazL29mbjwzFATgBOBxpv2KMmMuwVOIws KaqGka/TBlGv0YEy3st2 =H0bs -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --crnhJ5qRPvrNJfJhjRtJn5b09Tb0lpUPl-- From edward.lewis@icann.org Wed Feb 12 07:49:10 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 264601A09B0 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 07:49:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.748 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.748 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548] 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 QfyDinZoDSHH for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 07:49:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXPFE100-2.exc.icann.org (expfe100-2.exc.icann.org [64.78.22.237]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05DDB1A09A9 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 07:49:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.232]) by EXPFE100-2.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.237]) with mapi; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 07:49:07 -0800 From: Edward Lewis To: "Olaf M. Kolkman" , "dbound@ietf.org" Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 07:49:06 -0800 Thread-Topic: [Dbound] Starting point Thread-Index: Ac8nyFekeEERkPIiS0iD+3SP26DJvAAQDfvz Message-ID: References: , <52FB29B6.6000409@NLnetLabs.nl> In-Reply-To: <52FB29B6.6000409@NLnetLabs.nl> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Edward Lewis Subject: Re: [Dbound] Starting point X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 15:49:10 -0000 Let's say I'm focused on the architecture of the DNS (protocol) as opposed = to the management of the DNS. Within the protocol there is precedent to ma= nage individual names (dynamic update can authorize changes to just a one n= ame for a authenticated agent) but the protocol itself is ordinarily manage= d on the basis of zones. The concept is that if a person wants to control = a set of names they can come to me and I'd delegate a subdomain of mine to = them - by creating a zone cut. That's the DNS concept of allocating names = - and I stress the DNS concept (as opposed to the only one "ever"). I say this to, first apologize for my DNS bias here, highlight that I'm thi= nking of the overall DBOUND issue from one perspective. There are others -= which may or may not want to group names in some fashion other than by zon= e. Frankly, that was not on my mind. Perhaps someone has a need to do tha= t and that is implementable. I too have nothing in my imagination regarding "spheres" (as Olaf called th= em) but perhaps there is someone that does. In other words, I can't rule t= hen in, but I also wouldn't rule them out "with prejudice" (meaning, "hey, = no way!"). At a pre-BoF meeting stage I'd list this as an open question wh= ich - in my opinion and just that - wouldn't be something that gets address= ed. But perhaps there are users of the DNS that have workable stories buil= t on them. ________________________________________ From: Dbound [dbound-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Olaf M. Kolkman [olaf@N= LnetLabs.nl] Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 11:58 PM To: dbound@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dbound] Starting point On 12-02-14 01:15, Edward Lewis wrote: > I've been thinking about this problem for quite a while. I've never been= a fan of making the zone delegation points apparent in the DNS but I do un= derstand the need to draw a bounds around the set of zones under one manage= ment realm. > > One of the parts of the DNS I've always had a hard time explaining to new= comers is the difference between a "zone" and a "domain" and anyone familia= r with the DNS protocol can probably relate to that. That two zones may be= administered by the same person or by two independent organizations makes = is all the more annoying. > > The first aspect I'd like to nail down is - what's the purpose of exposin= g the "meaningful" zone cuts. I get that there is value but, what's the go= al. For the sake of knowing whether solutions answer the need, it helps to= know what is needed. Ignoring the engineering that follows. Ed, You seem to focus on the managerial areas in the DNS (the zones, In RR-terms starting at a SOA and ending at some delegation NS). Is there a requirement to have even finer, or broader level of control? Let me use the word sphere for that. Is there a requirement to work with spheres that could be a subset of a zone or a set of various zones in several domains? I have no idea if or why one would need such concept, if we frantically need to look for requirements then not, but if there are some obvious used cases, then it is probably good to document those. --Olaf From johnl@iecc.com Wed Feb 12 10:31:25 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BF2E1A06CF for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 10:31:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.357 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.357 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] 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 YPDq18JdgKw0 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 10:31:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D88731A06C9 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 10:31:23 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 90766 invoked from network); 12 Feb 2014 18:31:22 -0000 Received: from miucha.iecc.com (64.57.183.18) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 12 Feb 2014 18:31:22 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=52fbbdfa.xn--hew.k1402; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=ojSEORGqujeegqFvydXUB+LEIN4c1Y9p8C6Gyz9V3ws=; b=CGTYxImONvbz078VDmAnTYag+/tRd9r8PiqYiUdGOonp38psVKLnw4cYxUwgyhkUtmuWlbWPstGOE0S09sILrGFLhLFTkDr7O7TNJK3h+EAdqRAYqamg0uEKPleyvIVN0w11ZBFkGrSLoN4VWUFg9DQDV9X9g2fp6EmqKHobvZIA4PIyTRKukSNHzfLP4m+KyQYXfGWXX9YZEh4DrXYp9YpPsTdeRZbPiCGEUBPu2qgwAm/IFzmhejFeT5Rx+jgn DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=52fbbdfa.xn--hew.k1402; bh=ojSEORGqujeegqFvydXUB+LEIN4c1Y9p8C6Gyz9V3ws=; b=BinpUchXMPLND77kiFRsGZGRTgEfg9AczCLpQv2EorUMeTT0mWqGpJ+Akfpqzkp6YEzSxEl8snMkITu3ePGc6DJZWazIJbSjaon58NHek00dCthuyJ362yPJ6S/tPp8jv6wbKeF3zJx6PirfAwysWRvcIWxb5CUVaiab2Hn2HwVlE2GOPC/xhJOTCMqpSVJFShtXg1TNXrGB0N7RwQpN8P4WzrIXs4rqj+QD4Q864Aoaz/FAQi+XnOJ8xUB1pEEf Date: 12 Feb 2014 18:30:59 -0000 Message-ID: <20140212183059.57234.qmail@joyce.lan> From: "John Levine" To: dbound@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <52FB29B6.6000409@NLnetLabs.nl> Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit Cc: olaf@NLnetLabs.nl Subject: Re: [Dbound] Starting point X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 18:31:25 -0000 >Is there a requirement to have even finer, or broader level of control? >Let me use the word sphere for that. Is there a requirement to work with >spheres that could be a subset of a zone or a set of various zones in >several domains? There's certainly no requirement. It might be someone's wish list, but if we end up with something that requires that people create a zone boundary if they want a dbound boundary, I don't think it'd be the end of the world. R's, John From jabley@hopcount.ca Wed Feb 12 11:41:25 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A2531A0684 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 11:41:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-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 3cEIz3HsRT3p for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 11:41:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qc0-x22d.google.com (mail-qc0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::22d]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C12741A0631 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 11:41:17 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qc0-f173.google.com with SMTP id i8so16157214qcq.18 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 11:41:16 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hopcount.ca; s=google; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=rKG9UUPmVCHGqd/AF6rXJkvSBDyrYVuwyZdHLg8sw74=; b=TWevLEuizdU++eDNd3MC2JlSDlhfdZrWs8E1f07xpXEnJmVA4/rcP8SVZvZnCGKD9j 63yfIBO+4epndYbpKsTvd9c4bAnP2EGA5DsDIY1ep4qG2BwQPcf+us8tnBt0EhNa/18y vCaqFfCdHzqlw4gO6D3Ye0K69gasMAycdiNlY= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references:to; bh=rKG9UUPmVCHGqd/AF6rXJkvSBDyrYVuwyZdHLg8sw74=; b=fxq5YvjJxQiq1/fJE0J+JZ1E6odlIcpdICTQJ0LcBUxOUFxud9/U6JuvCm/iLmAhDh h0SN7P1wnCR3ZV078s2HX28pqA9oNRaiBu9aXAvBE5/2RPuBNOR/f3LSYIN26iS/8qPa g6tgzSeS2O27OHGZxpCtR/jrXTkRHEE4plQZkG/qPuNKxZYXe+DQXg1p6NN/2uPTqo8s Tjej31shRl94Nkww38wcBIUTyLJtN4Exqo83PZwbeegKxtF0ct+cygwTY0GAMCorBs3l BgRVMRXe6R8fVhsBFoP2luxWU81cVi6EaiU3PoE7TVc/FvZYGv+rqXqIykpAEfWF9r9U A2hQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmpMFrbagRKJLDVXuAzKex1oO8RuvBPVEDxorIAX4eFEVBnA7BdXUEVqHMA17lQPB51EBBm X-Received: by 10.140.97.73 with SMTP id l67mr66815245qge.56.1392234076539; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 11:41:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from dh24.r1.hopcount.ca (24-52-234-221.cable.teksavvy.com. [24.52.234.221]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id r13sm65638269qan.7.2014.02.12.11.41.15 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 12 Feb 2014 11:41:15 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_0B4E4866-A176-43F1-A052-C90B17FFD93D"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\)) From: Joe Abley In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 14:41:13 -0500 Message-Id: <8A11E01F-C0D9-4CFD-8F4C-CF0C46E0F222@hopcount.ca> References: To: Edward Lewis X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827) Cc: "dbound@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Dbound] Starting point X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 19:41:25 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_0B4E4866-A176-43F1-A052-C90B17FFD93D Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On 2014-02-11, at 19:15, Edward Lewis wrote: > The first aspect I'd like to nail down is - what's the purpose of = exposing the "meaningful" zone cuts. I get that there is value but, = what's the goal. For the sake of knowing whether solutions answer the = need, it helps to know what is needed. I think what we're talking about is a different kind of boundary. A zone cut is a protocol boundary. I think the PSL represents examples of administrative boundaries (e.g. = which are used to infer security boundaries for accepting cookies). A single administrative realm (trying hard not to use the word domain, = here) might contain multiple DNS zones, e.g. UK and CO.UK are separated = by a protocol boundary/zone cut, but there's no administrative boundary = between UK and CO.UK. There will be an administrative boundary between = UK and ABLEY.UK however, just as there is between CO.UK and ABLEY.CO.UK, = so this is not just a case of counting labels. > The second aspect to examine is whether this is in-band to the DNS, = out of band, or if there is just a "hook" - a reference DNS RR type that = points to another service. In general, I dislike mechanisms that require two sources of truth to be = maintained in isolation, especially if each source of truth is = maintained separately. It seems inevitable that such approaches wind up = being incoherent. Individual domain registries have the best chance of knowing the correct = answer for where administrative boundaries lie. I use the phrase "domain = registry" loosely, since I think it's wider than the usual = EPP-server-operators. The root zone registry operator knows precisely which dot in the label = string indicates a hand-off of administrative control to Nominet for UK. Nominet knows precisely which dot in the label string indicates a = hand-off to a registrant, for names ending in UK. That registrant is the best person to ask about any administrative = boundary from the label they control down (e.g. CentralNIC might have = something to say about UK.COM, Tumblr might have something to say about = TUMBLR.COM to indicate that content associated with different subdomains = is administered separately (so don't trust CAT.TUMBLR.COM to set a = cookie for DOG.TUMBLR.COM). This fanning out of points of authority sounds very much like the DNS, = which makes me think that the best answer to your question (b) is to = provide the signalling in the DNS. Whois is an example of publishing = related data out of band with the DNS, and I would suggest that amongst = whois' myriad problems is the difficulty in finding an appropriate whois = server for a domain (hence the persistent call to define the semantics = for things like _nicname._tcp SRV). On 2014-02-11, at 20:18, John Levine wrote: > These are all good questions. >=20 >> Jumping to a conclusion, which I know is a mistake, is that I have a = sneaking suspicion that this will need to be out of >> band. >=20 > You're probably right for a variety of reasons, including that it > seems impractical to ask DNS operators to put a new RR at every name > for which they want to say it's inside or outside some boundary. Joining in the gleeful descent of the rock-face of implementation, if = the administrator of a DNS zone was able to assert: - the following subdomains are within this administrative realm - the following subdomains are outside this administrative realm in such a way that the directions could be parsed in order, it might be = possible to avoid (a) long lists of names and (b) trying to publish = information at a zone cut in the parent (which we can't do), on the = basis that everything in a single DNS zone is in the same administrative = realm. An extra facility - the following non-subdomains are within this administrative realm with appropriate DNSSEC signing and validation might provide a means to = do safe cross-site cookie handling, which might be a nice toy to find in = the cereal box. Joe --Apple-Mail=_0B4E4866-A176-43F1-A052-C90B17FFD93D Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iEYEARECAAYFAlL7zlkACgkQNI8MvYZSOizSFACcD6a8rZPKh3+7KpQo1uiJMjC5 bTYAnij+9vXr6+EV0uP/tFeBdVMhGTPt =pqIw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_0B4E4866-A176-43F1-A052-C90B17FFD93D-- From nobody Thu Feb 13 10:17:41 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6452A1A03F2 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 10:17:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.448 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, SPF_PASS=-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 B4Hxjgk_e3UE for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 10:17:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (jazz.viagenie.ca [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 545491A03DC for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 10:17:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from [IPv6:2620:0:230:2002::1001] (unknown [IPv6:2620:0:230:2002::1001]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BCA7845D10 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 13:17:25 -0500 (EST) From: Marc Blanchet Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C4A17A97-8DA5-4EBD-8BF3-F4DE5058B86C" Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 13:17:24 -0500 References: <20140213174311.7771.33932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> To: dbound@ietf.org Message-Id: <8A334707-4DC1-4627-81B5-4FFB30DF0491@viagenie.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/n6pSCMEsHdMFbn0QlQy1vAVn4fU Subject: [Dbound] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-pettersen-subtld-structure-10.txt X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 18:17:34 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_C4A17A97-8DA5-4EBD-8BF3-F4DE5058B86C Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 FYI. Marc. D=E9but du message r=E9exp=E9di=E9 : > De: internet-drafts@ietf.org > Objet: I-D Action: draft-pettersen-subtld-structure-10.txt > Date: 13 f=E9vrier 2014 12:43:11 HNE > =C0: i-d-announce@ietf.org > R=E9pondre =E0: internet-drafts@ietf.org >=20 >=20 > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts = directories. >=20 >=20 > Title : The Public Suffix Structure file format and = its use for Cookie domain validation > Author : Yngve N. Pettersen > Filename : draft-pettersen-subtld-structure-10.txt > Pages : 16 > Date : 2014-02-12 >=20 > Abstract: > This document defines the term "Public Suffix domain" as meaning a > domain under which multiple parties that are unaffiliated with the > owner of the Public Suffix domain may register subdomains. Examples > of Public Suffix domains include "org", "co.uk", "k12.wa.us" and > "uk.com". It also defines a file format that can be used to > distribute information about such Public Suffix domains to relying > parties. As an example, this information is then used to limit = which > domains an Internet service can set HTTP cookies for, strengthening > the rules already defined by the cookie specification. This > specification updates RFC 6265 [RFC6265] by defining the term = "Public > Suffix domain". >=20 >=20 >=20 > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-pettersen-subtld-structure/ >=20 > There's also a htmlized version available at: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pettersen-subtld-structure-10 >=20 > A diff from the previous version is available at: > http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-pettersen-subtld-structure-10 >=20 >=20 > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of = submission > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. >=20 > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >=20 > _______________________________________________ > I-D-Announce mailing list > I-D-Announce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce > Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html > or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt --Apple-Mail=_C4A17A97-8DA5-4EBD-8BF3-F4DE5058B86C Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 FYI. = Marc.

D=E9but du message r=E9exp=E9di=E9 :

De: internet-drafts@ietf.org
<= /span>
Objet: = I-D Action: = draft-pettersen-subtld-structure-10.txt
Date: 13 f=E9vrier 2014 12:43:11 = HNE
R=E9pondre =E0: internet-drafts@ietf.org
<= /span>


A New Internet-Draft is available from the = on-line Internet-Drafts directories.


=        Title =           : The Public = Suffix Structure file format and its use for Cookie domain = validation
       Author =          : Yngve N. = Pettersen
= Filename        : = draft-pettersen-subtld-structure-10.txt
Pages =           : = 16
= Date =            : = 2014-02-12

Abstract:
  This document defines the = term "Public Suffix domain" as meaning a
  domain under = which multiple parties that are unaffiliated with the
=   owner of the Public Suffix domain may register subdomains. =  Examples
  of Public Suffix domains include "org", = "co.uk", "k12.wa.us" and
  "uk.com".  It also defines a file format = that can be used to
  distribute information about such = Public Suffix domains to relying
  parties.  As an = example, this information is then used to limit which
=   domains an Internet service can set HTTP cookies for, = strengthening
  the rules already defined by the cookie = specification.  This
  specification updates RFC 6265 = [RFC6265] by defining the term "Public
  Suffix = domain".



The IETF datatracker status page for this draft = is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-pettersen-subtld-structure/
There's also a htmlized version available = at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pettersen-subtld-structure-10
<= br>A diff from the previous version is available = at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-pettersen-subtld-structure= -10


Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the = time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available = at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by = anonymous FTP = at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

________________________= _______________________
I-D-Announce mailing = list
I-D-Announce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d= -announce
Internet-Draft directories: = http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
or = ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

= = --Apple-Mail=_C4A17A97-8DA5-4EBD-8BF3-F4DE5058B86C-- From nobody Fri Feb 14 13:37:51 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45B291A03A9 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 13:37:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 GoPFGNwnZCqf for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 13:37:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ve0-x232.google.com (mail-ve0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c01::232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DD3C1A023F for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 13:37:43 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ve0-f178.google.com with SMTP id oy12so10071838veb.37 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 13:37:41 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=imgXXbBBo95bWIQV0Dwt0I1ia4sS3wL/5EpqOHkWQPM=; b=uIIpwUIMzYOgh9DT8n/bExmNMTAzRRliWUzwij/7HMMdDkgiMwHN5v/MpbSNZOJYXS 5A9eG039DUcF4PmBWyaNzXTd1UEjq7DXC1YsBtMpKQCGSOmKtjorOTUS36dViZrY5UIs EFZQGTYoGttZTFOR3kolQ2XvtPSuTf6XaDPxaNnFH5qR2Jcc7YVtIrvtP6cuLTrCDuzS +3nsvOLRqbEwRiisrCL/l8Io1sSj6bU7+wmn4B740BMKlOUZQk6fw1xK2G3mv4IYQUGL eor4OFSgtELXECb4SLUMee+E91f3iQuf3hDZT9hSyoXJOtm3C47gyXeS5rvvSqTvUmvi 6FZA== X-Received: by 10.221.37.1 with SMTP id tc1mr2667883vcb.32.1392413861718; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 13:37:41 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.58.74.71 with HTTP; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 13:37:01 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <9FAC332C-7D62-480A-8046-820C96341CA5@hopcount.ca> From: Jothan Frakes Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 13:37:01 -0800 Message-ID: To: Joe Abley Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11334c389bafda04f2649ddc Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/SF2x0Ye_P0dnW-MZ_cQHKrEkCPM Cc: Olaf Kolkman , "marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca" , "dbound@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Dbound] Request to participate in DBOUND discussions X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 21:37:48 -0000 --001a11334c389bafda04f2649ddc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Joe- Due to client obligations making a schedule conflict, I won't be able to directly attend the upcoming IETF meeting in London to participate in the BoF. I will be in Singapore at the upcoming ICANN meeting and wanted to participate in (or propose if it is not yet in existence) a BoF there. Is that possible? > Your wishlist looks like you're assuming a solution that looks a lot like > a better-managed and better-structured public suffix list. > > =E2=80=8BYeah, I can definitely see that the list looks like that - actuall= y to be honest, it is that... Although I went all-out on a starting point to include many, many things beyond PSL. =E2=80=8B=E2=80=8BJust wanted to ge= t a wishlist started. :) The list is a set of asks or personal requests I have been approached with over the past 10-12 years related to different elements of domain boundaries or domain validation. This has been from LEA, Security, and DNS providers but also from just general internet tool developers or people writing simple web-forms or hosting companies. I don't want us to get stuck to where we can't think big at the time there is a blank canvas for us to paint, so why not get all the cans of paint onto the table, and then let the group discussion evolve what we do. I am sure some of this would fall away depending upon group wisdom. I don't want to necessarily prejudice the group's outcome, but rather identify needs/wants towards a goal of whatever we would potentially draft being inclusive of as many real world use cases as possible. I and others have participated in pre-Idraft dialog or ghostwriting them and seen them fall into the ether or not get traction. PSL exists because there really is not anything else. It formed in a vacuum to serve an important need. We might solve some/all/more than these needs through the dbound group work. Full disclosure (and selfishly), I'd like to see something out of this group that is a viable substitute for PSL. PSL is volunteer-operated and it is one of those "no good deed goes unpunished" efforts - the shortcomings are highlighted frequently than the benefits - by the people it benefits. I personally have thousands of hours invested in PSL and participate in it because I immediately recognized how it benefits developers and the internet community, and operates in the public interest - if it can keep up. A decentralized version with authoritative origins would be far better - getting registries to maintain something like their suffixes for their zones in something centralized like PSL can take a lot of coordination and effort in validating the data and the submission. Similar to DNSSEC there is no compulsion on authoritative operators to participate, and there is an educational gap as to what it is (and isn't). We also have the other side of the equation in the 'consumers' within the development / application and other communities who derive use from this resource to consider as well. > Is the solution space wide enough to consider other options, e.g. > publication of policy that communicates the same information in the form = of > data in the DNS, published as resource records? > > I sure hope so. I think DNS may be well suited for this, especially if there's some means to decentralize things and place authority into the hands of the appropriate party, such as the registry operator. > I'm not saying that one is better than the other (or that the right > solution requires just one approach, versus more than one), but it'd be > nice to understand the part (if any) different such approaches could play > as part of a working group discussion rather than as a pre-baked assumpti= on. > > [For illustrative purposes only, just to better explain the question > above, not jumping to implementation assumptions, I mean something like > > (in the root zone) > . IN SOA ... > . IN PSL whois.iana.org. "http://www.root-servers.org/" > > (in the COM zone) > COM. IN SOA ... > COM. IN PSL whois.crsnic.net. "http://www.verisigninc.com/" > > (etc) > > i.e. RRSets in the DNS at a zone apex that indicates the presence of a > registry-like administrative boundary, using the scaffolding already > present in the DNS to do versioning, cryptographic signatures, etc. No > doubt any real candidate mechanism would be better fleshed out than the > above, no need to point out the need for extra RDATA, etc, etc.] > > Thanks for the example. Could be new record type, might be a few.=E2=80=8B= =E2=80=8B For example, the boundaries might be different for Cookies than Whois in a given zone. In any event, if there was simply a pointer like that, consumers would want there to be consistency to those resources, so a suggested structure of file / resources available at the destination of whatever location would be wise to include in our scope if our work takes us in that direction. We would the authority chain to be clear, but also want to not prejudice (nor introduce opportunity to prejudice) sub-domain providers like Centralnic (EU.COM, UK.COM etc) or other similar providers from being able to include resources. --001a11334c389bafda04f2649ddc Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Joe-

Due to client obligations making a sc= hedule conflict, I won't be able to directly attend the upcoming IETF m= eeting in London to participate in the BoF. =C2=A0 I will be in Singapore a= t the upcoming ICANN meeting and wanted to participate in (or propose if it= is not yet in existence) a BoF there.

Is that p= ossible?

=C2=A0
Your wishlist looks like you= 9;re assuming a solution that looks a lot like a better-managed and better-= structured public suffix list.


=E2=80=8BYeah, I can defini= tely see that the list looks like that - actually to be honest, it is that.= .. =C2=A0Although I went all-out on a starting point to include many, many = things beyond PSL. =C2=A0 =E2=80=8B=E2=80=8BJust wanted to get a wishlist s= tarted. =C2=A0:)

The list is a set of asks or personal requests I = have been approached with over the past 10-12 years related to different el= ements of domain boundaries or domain validation. =C2=A0This has been from = LEA, Security, and DNS providers but also from just general internet tool d= evelopers or people writing simple web-forms or hosting companies.

I don't want us to get stuck to where we can&= #39;t think big at the time there is a blank canvas for us to paint, so why= not get all the cans of paint onto the table, and then let the group discu= ssion evolve what we do. =C2=A0I am sure some of this would fall away depen= ding upon group wisdom.

I don't want to necessarily prejud= ice the group's outcome, but rather identify needs/wants towards a goal= of whatever we would potentially draft being inclusive of as many real wor= ld use cases as possible. =C2=A0I and others have participated in pre-Idraf= t dialog or ghostwriting them and seen them fall into the ether or not get = traction.

PSL exists because there really is not anything else. =C2=A0It formed in a = vacuum to serve an important need. =C2=A0We might solve some/all/more than = these needs through the dbound group work.

Full disclosure (and selfishly), I'd like to see s= omething out of this group that is a viable substitute for PSL. =C2=A0PSL i= s volunteer-operated and it is one of those "no good deed goes unpunis= hed" efforts - the shortcomings are highlighted frequently than the be= nefits - by the people it benefits. =C2=A0I personally have thousands of ho= urs invested in PSL and participate in it because I immediately recognized = how it benefits developers and the internet community, and operates in the = public interest - if it can keep up. =C2=A0

A decentralized version with authoritative = origins would be far better - getting registries to maintain something like= their suffixes for their zones in something centralized like PSL can take = a lot of coordination and effort in validating the data and the submission.= =C2=A0Similar to DNSSEC there is no compulsion on authoritative operators = to participate, and there is an educational gap as to what it is (and isn&#= 39;t). =C2=A0We also have the other side of the equation in the 'consum= ers' within the development / application and other communities who der= ive use from this resource to consider as well.

=C2=A0
Is the solution space wide enough to consider other options, e.g. publicati= on of policy that communicates the same information in the form of data in = the DNS, published as resource records?


I sure hope so. =C2=A0I thi= nk DNS may be well suited for this, especially if there's some means to= decentralize things and place authority into the hands of the appropriate = party, such as the registry operator.
=C2=A0
<= blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-l= eft-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;pa= dding-left:1ex"> I'm not saying that one is better than the other (or that the right sol= ution requires just one approach, versus more than one), but it'd be ni= ce to understand the part (if any) different such approaches could play as = part of a working group discussion rather than as a pre-baked assumption.
[For illustrative purposes only, just to better explain the question above,= not jumping to implementation assumptions, I mean something like

=C2=A0 (in the root zone)
=C2=A0 . IN SOA ...
=C2=A0 . IN PSL whois.i= ana.org. "http://www.root-servers.org/"

=C2=A0 (in the COM zone)
=C2=A0 COM. IN SOA ...
=C2=A0 COM. IN PSL wh= ois.crsnic.net. "http://www.verisigninc.com/"

=C2=A0 (etc)

i.e. RRSets in the DNS at a zone apex that indicates the presence of a regi= stry-like administrative boundary, using the scaffolding already present in= the DNS to do versioning, cryptographic signatures, etc. No doubt any real= candidate mechanism would be better fleshed out than the above, no need to= point out the need for extra RDATA, etc, etc.]


Thanks for the example. =C2=A0Could be new record type, might b= e a few.=E2=80=8B=E2=80=8B =C2=A0For example, the boundaries might be diffe= rent for Cookies than Whois in a given zone.

In any event, if there was simply a pointer= like that, consumers would want there to be consistency to those resources= , so a suggested structure of file / resources available at the destination= of whatever location would be wise to include in our scope if our work tak= es us in that direction.

We would the authority chain to be clear, b= ut also want to not prejudice (nor introduce opportunity to prejudice) sub-= domain providers like Centralnic (EU.COM, UK.COM etc) = or other similar providers from being able to include resources.



--001a11334c389bafda04f2649ddc-- From nobody Fri Feb 14 13:46:53 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41CA41A042C for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 13:46:51 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-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 1uj2SExGKm6J for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 13:46:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ig0-x22c.google.com (mail-ig0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::22c]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 615331A043D for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 13:46:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ig0-f172.google.com with SMTP id k19so1692790igc.5 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 13:46:38 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hopcount.ca; s=google; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=r2vCJojHWTBJ9qMI+wJ1eLw+FK9PPhlDHzenQ6KB5Zo=; b=CIjnkRR1EBeyqL188J5hPGgndWpVIaswcWSfx9JMQy+TEp9H9td6PvDFx1NjI8QpLT p+bqkQydB53yrjnL8/LDQtOGiMz9SpPcPcGwabAZGOuRu1Lek6JpMDks+fh1aAc93s66 MxfkrcHZwkHPoglo9VGk/Xh0lNg+g/jMQzYbQ= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references:to; bh=r2vCJojHWTBJ9qMI+wJ1eLw+FK9PPhlDHzenQ6KB5Zo=; b=GlAe/iDwQPV/SRRYQWA/gsG8gzGyvLDa3b+GcNjAkNlkDoON15vqFcQ6skOXwUyxAe uyTPG7zSq01yW/dg8CzfpqUl0PJJJUzNNMbZ75eA+Fma+PAPkpJFFJ6gc4GQdSt6HGks amaHUZDeUaZPjYmBQqdgnGhMH0u9XkDaMsq5PFRzvPdmsHft367XSsSAydn0OL44H+R6 H1Xt5Kxb6tmga+uZqaZf6YoxvIyXynDnL2dbGg6sdVVo3Dvr5Www7DxLcwBBlg4pszC0 ulkkTW39rqinYTg7Q9LWBThEZOwD31VjwBbJdmF4O4IAWUQOse3wVBx0z8K9/xS0OAhH S4WQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlfVglHtbyk0yYdpZlC2mvITVBD+CPAJzLeroes8PV//HfE7MoyvLDxXuCan02eAr8RbSb5 X-Received: by 10.50.111.79 with SMTP id ig15mr5012815igb.14.1392414398680; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 13:46:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:4900:1042:1:a4f1:fe63:c4b6:1928? ([2001:4900:1042:1:a4f1:fe63:c4b6:1928]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id d2sm8109206igc.0.2014.02.14.13.46.37 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 14 Feb 2014 13:46:37 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_29520FBD-D579-4C47-8AD9-6C676DEC0B9A"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\)) From: Joe Abley In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 16:46:36 -0500 Message-Id: <38D54805-91A1-4CC1-9FCE-50CABE0B53E1@hopcount.ca> References: <9FAC332C-7D62-480A-8046-820C96341CA5@hopcount.ca> To: Jothan Frakes X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/iiKbIyQROUDpsR8Yo_OxbaTcZOY Cc: Olaf Kolkman , "marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca" , "dbound@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Dbound] Request to participate in DBOUND discussions X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 21:46:51 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_29520FBD-D579-4C47-8AD9-6C676DEC0B9A Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi Jothan, On 2014-02-14, at 16:37, Jothan Frakes wrote: > Due to client obligations making a schedule conflict, I won't be able = to directly attend the upcoming IETF meeting in London to participate in = the BoF. I will be in Singapore at the upcoming ICANN meeting and = wanted to participate in (or propose if it is not yet in existence) a = BoF there. >=20 > Is that possible? I don't know (I'm not involved in the ICANN meeting or this list/BOF in = any way other than an interested participant) but in general I'd say = it's not hard to find a room at an ICANN meeting to discuss things. I will be in Singapore and if such a thing was to happen, I would try to = attend. Thanks for the detailed and good answers to my questions! I like the way = you're going with this. Joe --Apple-Mail=_29520FBD-D579-4C47-8AD9-6C676DEC0B9A Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iEYEARECAAYFAlL+jrwACgkQNI8MvYZSOiy1FgCgitO2Qd0JwNDLd6Rmv9SDEOsc LbQAoL8kmBySh4y5XGgLoTu5XkVngU8l =LvxV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_29520FBD-D579-4C47-8AD9-6C676DEC0B9A-- From nobody Fri Feb 14 14:32:29 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB1541A01CD for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 14:32:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-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 vEADfCvWl1s6 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 14:32:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from exchange.blacknight.ie (exchange.blacknight.ie [81.17.243.252]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3FAC1A01B4 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 14:32:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from BK-EXCHMBX01.blacknight.local ([fe80::a9c8:c46:8f4d:f8c8]) by bkexchhubcas01.blacknight.local ([fe80::994e:1bb8:df56:f591%15]) with mapi id 14.02.0342.003; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 22:32:20 +0000 From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight To: Joe Abley Thread-Topic: [Dbound] Request to participate in DBOUND discussions Thread-Index: AQHPKc47xbD0228WmkeaZQD1nsGk1Jq1VaFw Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 22:32:19 +0000 Message-ID: References: <9FAC332C-7D62-480A-8046-820C96341CA5@hopcount.ca> , <20140214214712.609DC59C001@merlin.blacknight.ie> In-Reply-To: <20140214214712.609DC59C001@merlin.blacknight.ie> Accept-Language: en-IE, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/WJ0taiz6Qj0y0PHWnEzBonPweA8 Cc: Olaf Kolkman , "marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca" , Jothan Frakes , "dbound@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Dbound] Request to participate in DBOUND discussions X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 22:32:27 -0000 There's usually rooms I could ask ICANN staff for a room if you want? ------------------------ Mr. Michele Neylon Blacknight http://Blacknight.tel Via iPhone so excuse typos and brevity > On 14 Feb 2014, at 21:47, "Joe Abley" wrote: >=20 > Hi Jothan, >=20 >> On 2014-02-14, at 16:37, Jothan Frakes wrote: >>=20 >> Due to client obligations making a schedule conflict, I won't be able to= directly attend the upcoming IETF meeting in London to participate in the = BoF. I will be in Singapore at the upcoming ICANN meeting and wanted to p= articipate in (or propose if it is not yet in existence) a BoF there. >>=20 >> Is that possible? >=20 > I don't know (I'm not involved in the ICANN meeting or this list/BOF in a= ny way other than an interested participant) but in general I'd say it's no= t hard to find a room at an ICANN meeting to discuss things. >=20 > I will be in Singapore and if such a thing was to happen, I would try to = attend. >=20 > Thanks for the detailed and good answers to my questions! I like the way = you're going with this. >=20 >=20 > Joe >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Dbound mailing list > Dbound@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dbound From nobody Fri Feb 14 16:44:13 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D33711A011C for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 16:44:11 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.955 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.955 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.793] 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 WDFoqVK2ydEu for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 16:44:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic-naa.net (unknown [65.99.1.131]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 592741A00DE for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 16:44:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from frog.local ([67.42.198.93]) by nic-naa.net (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s1F0hRTX007163 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 19:43:43 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net) Message-ID: <52FEB825.4000701@abenaki.wabanaki.net> Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 16:43:17 -0800 From: Eric Brunner-Williams User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dbound@ietf.org References: <9FAC332C-7D62-480A-8046-820C96341CA5@hopcount.ca> <38D54805-91A1-4CC1-9FCE-50CABE0B53E1@hopcount.ca> In-Reply-To: <38D54805-91A1-4CC1-9FCE-50CABE0B53E1@hopcount.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/RELV-9XAz6sKN5EH1xIat8PaCuU Subject: Re: [Dbound] Request to participate in DBOUND discussions X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2014 00:44:12 -0000 On 2/14/14 1:46 PM, Joe Abley wrote: > I don't know (I'm not involved in the ICANN meeting or this list/BOF in any way other than an interested participant) but in general I'd say it's not hard to find a room at an ICANN meeting to discuss things. > > I will be in Singapore and if such a thing was to happen, I would try to attend. My experience (while consulting for CORE) was that more often than not we were not able to obtain a room sufficient to hold meetings of the "working group on X" type. For small meetings (single client business development) we were able to lease "business center" space (which was convenient for signage and literature storage pre- and post-show). The venue bar has been a reliable venue, as have been off-property locations, usually restaurants. My two beads worth of response to Joe's expectation (or hope) that off-program meeting space is easily available. If you can get the meeting room coordinator to get you a room you're doing better than we did, on average, for stuff we thought was reasonably useful. Eric From nobody Fri Feb 14 18:23:57 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90DC61A02E0 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 18:23:55 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-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 3J8UR1h_sx2t for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 18:23:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ob0-x229.google.com (mail-ob0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02AB01A0333 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 18:23:53 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ob0-f169.google.com with SMTP id wo20so14938898obc.28 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 18:23:52 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hopcount.ca; s=google; h=from:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=3NOIRS2xQ54mQUG/Bx1Es69aUlwrmS2FuHdcLkmRoWg=; b=K4f3PZJZ2JzFCc4tc0EqNekYmNhLHLXzWk+duI/TT05S4ioUF24qQbbLlSl41KaNok BLTll4wo0stTi2Bhguis3x6LPMrM2QPsUKQR3uGSn4EPSeAPUFWKDQtjEqOruUEbG2ZM 1mR9A42TDHgi6ZToEigh7JrNW/VrUgPJcsWgQ= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=3NOIRS2xQ54mQUG/Bx1Es69aUlwrmS2FuHdcLkmRoWg=; b=P9uwpOPhRt78RCLilr5FARFzuksENCewVyxTHbHStrAG2ggm9qnNFCTWK8tDWc5LbR E2t3AkJfoduGaqKw8/J+SsTEaJYI3D0cbp110IwLz0u7Fuu2CgpRS9qMdGUIAn/f5qg+ lkQxtTGofRN8yryBEFMdv2KXrNaXj2lSX7GWCg+MmJWntyYo8IuO17pxTAK2uBEp851f P9/hi+0F98Khx9BcpnTfTwS6mM4UcTFSC156iN0eAyM7O0PCqheszk9UnsIxHELMWrxs 9FXYmjIKGZr7IWTPI0sI8aL1QEF0uk/bB+eMhEbwzGLj71fOx26HNzW3xViR19fJsHnf OfVg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlmZgHgfKMhTgDQUnVzxxlqd1NsG4paIV8TBX4CtZO2z3Oi3Zsqy02KqIy6S0NDEf0BIBAJ X-Received: by 10.182.102.134 with SMTP id fo6mr9542692obb.10.1392431032130; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 18:23:52 -0800 (PST) From: Joe Abley Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) References: <9FAC332C-7D62-480A-8046-820C96341CA5@hopcount.ca> <38D54805-91A1-4CC1-9FCE-50CABE0B53E1@hopcount.ca> <52FEB825.4000701@abenaki.wabanaki.net> In-Reply-To: <52FEB825.4000701@abenaki.wabanaki.net> Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 21:23:51 -0500 Message-ID: <-8873747121782264440@unknownmsgid> To: Eric Brunner-Williams Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/UWqbxSdkVuH1hTYx6dBBfxhLp64 Cc: "dbound@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Dbound] Request to participate in DBOUND discussions X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2014 02:23:55 -0000 On Feb 14, 2014, at 19:44, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote: > My two beads worth of response to Joe's expectation (or hope) that off-pr= ogram meeting space is easily available. If you can get the meeting room co= ordinator to get you a room you're doing better than we did, on average, fo= r stuff we thought was reasonably useful. Well, I do know people. I can certainly try if that seems useful. Joe From nobody Fri Feb 14 19:50:16 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0039E1A0006 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 19:50:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.854 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.854 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.793] 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 VFks4TAYxtWM for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 19:50:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic-naa.net (unknown [65.99.1.131]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 529B01A0004 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 19:50:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from frog.local ([67.42.198.93]) by nic-naa.net (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s1F3nLRX007634 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 22:49:40 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net) Message-ID: <52FEE3B7.7090007@abenaki.wabanaki.net> Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 19:49:11 -0800 From: Eric Brunner-Williams User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dbound@ietf.org References: <9FAC332C-7D62-480A-8046-820C96341CA5@hopcount.ca> <38D54805-91A1-4CC1-9FCE-50CABE0B53E1@hopcount.ca> <52FEB825.4000701@abenaki.wabanaki.net> <-8873747121782264440@unknownmsgid> In-Reply-To: <-8873747121782264440@unknownmsgid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/2mhuDa2MA1aVsywpO4vBREtLYAk Subject: Re: [Dbound] Request to participate in DBOUND discussions X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2014 03:50:14 -0000 On 2/14/14 6:23 PM, Joe Abley wrote: >> >My two beads worth of response to Joe's expectation (or hope) that off-program meeting space is easily available. If you can get the meeting room coordinator to get you a room you're doing better than we did, on average, for stuff we thought was reasonably useful. > Well, I do know people. I can certainly try if that seems useful. I thought I did too. I'm not suggesting the experience I related was representative, only that when asking for "90 minutes use of a capacity 30+ room" for purposes such as creating policy and mechanism for ranking community rights along with trademark rights and general availability, or creating policy and mechanism for locality constrained applications of the DNS, that is, community and/or municipal service models, the requests went unanswered more often than not. The bar across the street at Raffles is nice, and there is much more than just the Raffles bar. The national library has adequate rooms for rent also, just a short walk past the Raffles. Less dull choices for a 30 room with audio are tour bus and water tour rentals, the audience gets better scenery than the standard hotel walls, they can walk a bit if there's a destination, and there is no impact upon, or dependency upon, the rooms available at the venue. Eric Brunner-Williams Eugene, Oregon From nobody Mon Feb 24 10:39:36 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 310041A012D for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 10:39:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.448 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, J_CHICKENPOX_44=0.6, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-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 m7wrVjFQSiwf for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 10:39:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (jazz.viagenie.ca [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDA8C1A0140 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 10:39:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from h227.viagenie.ca (h227.viagenie.ca [206.123.31.227]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7B98440396 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 13:39:31 -0500 (EST) From: Marc Blanchet Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <4E921524-2ED7-4A93-B872-2FEDB4126F53@viagenie.ca> Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 13:39:33 -0500 To: dbound@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/fMq3tk_pzdcWLNDu0spZ0qxCyEA Subject: [Dbound] dbound BOF agenda X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 18:39:34 -0000 Hello, please find the agenda for the Dbound BOF: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/89/agenda/agenda-89-dbound Regards, Marc&Olaf, co-chairs. From nobody Tue Feb 25 06:03:03 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 357361A0717 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 06:03:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.147 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.147 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_44=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547] 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 SYPfuP_SCOmS for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 06:02:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXPFE100-1.exc.icann.org (expfe100-1.exc.icann.org [64.78.22.236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CE241A0723 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 06:01:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.232]) by EXPFE100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.236]) with mapi; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 06:01:17 -0800 From: Edward Lewis To: Marc Blanchet , "dbound@ietf.org" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 05:57:00 -0800 Thread-Topic: [Dbound] dbound BOF agenda Thread-Index: Ac8xj9D9yzZ0P9qYS567RY1W2SsCIwAoaOJu Message-ID: References: <4E921524-2ED7-4A93-B872-2FEDB4126F53@viagenie.ca> In-Reply-To: <4E921524-2ED7-4A93-B872-2FEDB4126F53@viagenie.ca> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/CmrE-eeJgMDNh84wW8oleDN9TLU Cc: Edward Lewis Subject: Re: [Dbound] dbound BOF agenda X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 14:03:01 -0000 Why no WebEx? (Stated more as, what are the criteria for getting WebEx, not so much as a = protest.) Or MeetEcho for that matter. (I'm familiar with WebEx and it seems to be v= ery useful, I'm not familiar with MeetEcho.) ________________________________________ From: Dbound [dbound-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Marc Blanchet [marc.bla= nchet@viagenie.ca] Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 1:39 PM To: dbound@ietf.org Subject: [Dbound] dbound BOF agenda Hello, please find the agenda for the Dbound BOF: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/89/agenda/agenda-89-dbound Regards, Marc&Olaf, co-chairs. _______________________________________________ Dbound mailing list Dbound@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dbound From nobody Tue Feb 25 06:14:12 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFEE61A06E3 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 06:14:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.848 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.848 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_44=0.6, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-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 0b3Dktd9afp5 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 06:14:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (jazz.viagenie.ca [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE5D61A045D for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 06:14:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from h195.viagenie.ca (h195.viagenie.ca [206.123.31.195]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 42301403F7; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 09:14:07 -0500 (EST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\)) From: Marc Blanchet In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 09:14:06 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <50776B53-339A-41E2-B0EF-0500FE8D18C2@viagenie.ca> References: <4E921524-2ED7-4A93-B872-2FEDB4126F53@viagenie.ca> To: Edward Lewis X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/g8qt7ohuj809Mco9Wc0Pvl-d5uw Cc: "dbound@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Dbound] dbound BOF agenda X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 14:14:11 -0000 Le 2014-02-25 =E0 08:57, Edward Lewis a =E9crit = : > Why no WebEx? no reason. >=20 > (Stated more as, what are the criteria for getting WebEx, not so much = as a protest.) We did not really take much time to think about this and did not receive = any formal request.=20 >=20 > Or MeetEcho for that matter. (I'm familiar with WebEx and it seems to = be very useful, I'm not familiar with MeetEcho.) Ok, so do I understand that you are not attending London IETF and would = like to participate remotely to this dbound bof? Regards, Marc. > ________________________________________ > From: Dbound [dbound-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Marc Blanchet = [marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca] > Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 1:39 PM > To: dbound@ietf.org > Subject: [Dbound] dbound BOF agenda >=20 > Hello, > please find the agenda for the Dbound BOF: > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/89/agenda/agenda-89-dbound >=20 > Regards, Marc&Olaf, co-chairs. >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Dbound mailing list > Dbound@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dbound >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Dbound mailing list > Dbound@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dbound From nobody Tue Feb 25 07:01:02 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB96A1A06E2 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 07:00:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.747 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.747 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547] 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 pg6XKh2LBAZT for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 07:00:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXPFE100-1.exc.icann.org (expfe100-1.exc.icann.org [64.78.22.236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 144761A06EB for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 07:00:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.232]) by EXPFE100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.236]) with mapi; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 07:00:57 -0800 From: Edward Lewis To: Marc Blanchet Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 06:56:26 -0800 Thread-Topic: [Dbound] dbound BOF agenda Thread-Index: Ac8yM+ahzh2H/hkuTJWwv7bJ2T3bQgABdtF0 Message-ID: References: <4E921524-2ED7-4A93-B872-2FEDB4126F53@viagenie.ca> , <50776B53-339A-41E2-B0EF-0500FE8D18C2@viagenie.ca> In-Reply-To: <50776B53-339A-41E2-B0EF-0500FE8D18C2@viagenie.ca> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/HKG2RjSCxCmBhvxN22ZGBQDuMIA Cc: Edward Lewis , "dbound@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Dbound] dbound BOF agenda X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 15:01:00 -0000 As a matter fact, given the agenda slot, I could attend via WebEX. (A "it = just so happens" comment.) If there is one, I'd make use of it. If not, I'd just catch up via the arc= hives, etc. If it doesn't happen, I'll pretend it's the 1990's again and g= et the proceedings on paper or CD and read it. ;) (No offense intended...I hadn't asked because I wasn't aware of the option = until I saw the BoF schedule request.)= From nobody Tue Feb 25 07:07:45 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E3521A0077 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 07:07:43 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.448 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-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 ohAtLu3uRsTF for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 07:07:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (jazz.viagenie.ca [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F6BB1A06F3 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 07:07:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from h195.viagenie.ca (h195.viagenie.ca [206.123.31.195]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EC5E5403F1; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 10:07:39 -0500 (EST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\)) From: Marc Blanchet In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 10:07:37 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <4E921524-2ED7-4A93-B872-2FEDB4126F53@viagenie.ca> , <50776B53-339A-41E2-B0EF-0500FE8D18C2@viagenie.ca> To: Edward Lewis X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/0GF0UiyaG5v5F9I6iJyf96wxwNU Cc: "dbound@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Dbound] dbound BOF agenda X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 15:07:43 -0000 ok. I'll request it. Will update when info is available. Regards, Marc. Le 2014-02-25 =E0 09:56, Edward Lewis a =E9crit = : > As a matter fact, given the agenda slot, I could attend via WebEX. (A = "it just so happens" comment.) >=20 > If there is one, I'd make use of it. If not, I'd just catch up via = the archives, etc. If it doesn't happen, I'll pretend it's the 1990's = again and get the proceedings on paper or CD and read it. ;) >=20 > (No offense intended...I hadn't asked because I wasn't aware of the = option until I saw the BoF schedule request.) From nobody Wed Feb 26 01:49:09 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 690751A0172 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 01:49:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.379 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.379 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HOST_MISMATCH_COM=0.311, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 O9HD8WKUEaF0 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 01:49:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.mozilla.org (mx1.corp.phx1.mozilla.com [63.245.216.69]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2AC01A012D for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 01:49:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.0.207] (93.243.187.81.in-addr.arpa [81.187.243.93]) (Authenticated sender: gerv@mozilla.org) by mx1.mail.corp.phx1.mozilla.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EC94CF2AF9 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 01:49:02 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <530DB88D.9050402@mozilla.org> Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 09:49:01 +0000 From: Gervase Markham User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:29.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/29.0a2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dbound@ietf.org X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 OpenPGP: id=9DF43DBB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/ILvSldD5lAe4lSzIohHH2SEUe_M Subject: [Dbound] Problem statement X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 09:49:08 -0000 Hi everyone, My name is Gervase Markham; I am part of the team which maintains the Public Suffix List. As someone has already noted on this list, before we can produce a solution, we need to know what problem we are solving. To that end, the PSL team have been attempting to make a list of all the known uses of the PSL. It is here: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Public_Suffix_List/Uses Hopefully, that can be used to develop a better understanding of the problems people are trying to solve using the PSL, and therefore the problem any PSL replacement would need to solve. If anyone has further information to add, that would be most welcome. The document currently has good coverage of browser-based uses, but very little coverage of what people using the many PSL libraries in non-browser products are actually doing. But either way, I hope this document can inform the discussion in London. Gerv From nobody Wed Feb 26 07:00:04 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3BF51A0433 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 06:59:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.448 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-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 3-Lzi72u3b7I for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 06:59:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (jazz.viagenie.ca [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7ADC11A0109 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 06:59:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from [IPv6:2620:0:230:2002::1001] (unknown [IPv6:2620:0:230:2002::1001]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 650C2403C9 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 09:59:50 -0500 (EST) From: Marc Blanchet Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <4CBF055F-F57F-4720-A62A-A61CFC1B97D5@viagenie.ca> Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 09:59:49 -0500 To: dbound@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/LPq9y1727Z4Rr6WG9aVPGoP6ClQ Subject: [Dbound] meetecho support for dbound bof X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 15:00:00 -0000 Hello, Meetecho will support the dbound bof, for remote participants. For = information on meetecho, see: = http://www.ietf.org/meeting/89/remote-participation.html#Meetecho Regards, Marc. From nobody Wed Feb 26 07:17:28 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5479E1A067E for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 07:17:22 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.747 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.747 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547] 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 P8Gu0AudNcaF for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 07:17:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXPFE100-2.exc.icann.org (expfe100-2.exc.icann.org [64.78.22.237]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A88E91A066F for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 07:17:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.232]) by EXPFE100-2.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.237]) with mapi; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 07:17:18 -0800 From: Edward Lewis To: Marc Blanchet , "dbound@ietf.org" Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 07:17:06 -0800 Thread-Topic: [Dbound] meetecho support for dbound bof Thread-Index: Ac8zA3s1SBDftAqeSqSfyJ14ZX3ONAAAlSuA Message-ID: References: <4CBF055F-F57F-4720-A62A-A61CFC1B97D5@viagenie.ca> In-Reply-To: <4CBF055F-F57F-4720-A62A-A61CFC1B97D5@viagenie.ca> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/IdNopYLsnl-6lpAS2NGD5In06fo Cc: Edward Lewis Subject: Re: [Dbound] meetecho support for dbound bof X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 15:17:22 -0000 Thanks. ________________________________________ From: Dbound [dbound-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Marc Blanchet [marc.bla= nchet@viagenie.ca] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 9:59 AM To: dbound@ietf.org Subject: [Dbound] meetecho support for dbound bof Hello, Meetecho will support the dbound bof, for remote participants. For informa= tion on meetecho, see: http://www.ietf.org/meeting/89/remote-participation.= html#Meetecho Regards, Marc. _______________________________________________ Dbound mailing list Dbound@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dbound From nobody Wed Feb 26 09:27:19 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0422B1A0734 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 09:27:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.277 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.277 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, HTML_MESSAGE=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 rC4LnGoCkRJw for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 09:27:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ve0-x22e.google.com (mail-ve0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c01::22e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6279D1A0728 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 09:27:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ve0-f174.google.com with SMTP id oy12so2499177veb.19 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 09:27:05 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=KoarMJIH0XGVJIn3oUtrhq755WuU8C7CZWd+8pxIIv4=; b=L409CTSfus1PY8y2VHTULuMpi/wZiPrxdj/49z55rwZUppKWkkv1vuI8MYhRxhcLhL Qvu2GU4eMuVYLjIxjpeIhvcShbfeLVFqEuxEbmNmpHbihsbhB/EUIpJfKvMItbI2TajF Os7Jr/uqPE0ooL+KVbmC/tIqGobOavIEypI5ZOXX+WQuzoTpXtI2XFr5LK8uGjnYTger PHVz3qgCpFYPflXTubNNoys4KRxuKpU4E5tv+0GOF6sNZH1pEUM5Yh+LU4xsrWZUHyyy aB0JYCz5tt+/yrNZORgz/PKRcLZNw/e08FgPakORZ8e+ZtcdmYRckh35m+b6BLQBVw++ /MkQ== X-Received: by 10.58.188.78 with SMTP id fy14mr6879885vec.23.1393435624967; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 09:27:04 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: jothan@gmail.com Received: by 10.58.74.5 with HTTP; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 09:26:24 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <4CBF055F-F57F-4720-A62A-A61CFC1B97D5@viagenie.ca> From: Jothan Frakes Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 09:26:24 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: DjKsP9ac_vwXyYtzc-WYWBe1dWM Message-ID: To: Edward Lewis Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013a12f071945d04f35283a4 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/jTCFU9hSJQKjOcsusJZMnZSESHA Cc: Marc Blanchet , "dbound@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Dbound] meetecho support for dbound bof X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 17:27:08 -0000 --089e013a12f071945d04f35283a4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =E2=80=8BI also am grateful for this as I have to participate remotely. Good to see you involved in this initiative Ed! =E2=80=8B Jothan Frakes +1.206-355-0230 tel +1.206-201-6881 fax On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 7:17 AM, Edward Lewis wrote= : > Thanks. > ________________________________________ > From: Dbound [dbound-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Marc Blanchet [ > marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca] > Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 9:59 AM > To: dbound@ietf.org > Subject: [Dbound] meetecho support for dbound bof > > Hello, > Meetecho will support the dbound bof, for remote participants. For > information on meetecho, see: > http://www.ietf.org/meeting/89/remote-participation.html#Meetecho > > Regards, Marc. > > _______________________________________________ > Dbound mailing list > Dbound@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dbound > > _______________________________________________ > Dbound mailing list > Dbound@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dbound > --089e013a12f071945d04f35283a4 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=E2=80=8BI also am grateful fo= r this as I have to participate remotely.

Good to see you involved in this init= iative Ed! =E2=80=8B

Jothan Frakes
+1.206-355-0230 tel
+1.206-201-6881 fax


On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 7:17 AM, Edward = Lewis <edward.lewis@icann.org> wrote:
Thanks.
________________________________________
From: Dbound [dbound-bounces@iet= f.org] On Behalf Of Marc Blanchet [marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 9:59 AM
To: dbound@ietf.org
Subject: [Dbound] meetecho support for dbound bof

Hello,
=C2=A0Meetecho will support the dbound bof, for remote participants. For in= formation on meetecho, see: http://www.ietf.org/meetin= g/89/remote-participation.html#Meetecho

Regards, Marc.

_______________________________________________
Dbound mailing list
Dbound@ietf.org
= https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dbound

_______________________________________________
Dbound mailing list
Dbound@ietf.org
= https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dbound

--089e013a12f071945d04f35283a4--