Subject: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for: draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf

From: Benno Overeinder <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2018 12:27:17 +0200

The chairs have read the email discussions on the DNSOP mailing list and
think that all feedback and comments have been addressed by the author,
either in the draft or on the mailing list.

This starts a Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf

Current versions of the draft is available here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf/

The Current Intended Status of this document is: Best Current Practice

Please review the draft and offer relevant comments.
If this does not seem appropriate please speak out.
If someone feels the document is *not* ready for publication, please
speak out with your reasons.

This starts a two week Working Group Last Call process, and ends on: 9
July 2018.

Thanks,

-- Benno

---

From: "Paul Hoffman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2018 08:29:46 -0700

> This starts a two week Working Group Last Call process, and ends on: 9

Just to be clear: this is a WG Last Call on draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf 
but *not* on draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-fix, correct?

--Paul Hoffman

---

From: "Paul Hoffman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2018 10:16:50 -0700

> speak out with your reasons.

The document seems ready for standardization. I haven't read it in a 
while, and it seems fine. Two small editorial notes:

The second paragraph of Section 1.1 puts RRsets in quotes, but it is not 
clear why. Either the quotes should be removed, or they should be 
explained.

The third paragraph of Section 1.1 says that RFC 6376 uses 
"_domainkeys". In fact, it uses "_domainkey".

--Paul Hoffman

---

From: Benno Overeinder <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2018 20:06:38 +0200

> but *not* on draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-fix, correct?

Yes indeed.  We will start a WG Last Call for attrleaf-fix independently.

Thanks for the clarification.

-- Benno

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 25 Jun 2018 16:08:06 -0500

>This starts a Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf

I think it's ready to go but I also think it would better be handled
as a bundle with attrleaf-fix because if we find something in one
it's likely to affect the other.

One minor point in attrleaf, is whether to mention the poor
interactions between _names and wildcards.  One issue is that
_blah.*.example doesn't work, the other is that *.example will match
underscored names which can be surprising if it has RRs of a type that
might be underscored, notably TXT.

R's,
John
-- 
Regards,
John Levine, [email-masked], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

---

From: Ray Bellis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2018 22:13:15 +0100

> might be underscored, notably TXT.

Isn't the issue with wildcards already well addressed in the IAB
document on extending the DNS ?  (RFC 5507).

Ray

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2018 11:38:17 -1000

> document on extending the DNS ?  (RFC 5507).

Yes, but...

This is certainly a universal issue with _names and it's one that seems 
not to be obvious to many folk.  So while the mathematics of purity 
should be satisfied that the issue is document somewhere, the 
probabilities of reader psychology might encourage some judicious 
redundancy.  And RFCs nicely permit pedagogy along with specification.

I'm feeling lazy.  Care to suggest text to add and its location in 
-attrleaf, John?

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

---

From: "John R Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 25 Jun 2018 17:22:45 -0500

On Mon, 25 Jun 2018, Dave Crocker wrote:
> I'm feeling lazy.  Care to suggest text to add and its location in -attrleaf, 
> John?

See below.

Regards,
John Levine, [email-masked], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

       <section title="Security Considerations">
          <t>This memo raises no new security issues.</t>
 	 <section title="Interaction with DNS wildcards">
 	   <t>DNS wildcards interact poorly with _underscore names in two ways.
 	    Since wildcards only are interpreted as leaf names, one cannot create
 	    the equivalent of a wildcard name for prefixed names.
 	    A name such as_label.*.example.com is not a wildcard.
 	   </t><t>Conversely, a wildcard such as *.example.com can match any name
 	    including an _underscore name.  Any RRs at a wildcard name that are used with _underscore names,
 	    such as TXT, the RRs could be misinterpreted as _underscore'd data.
 	   </t>
 	 </section>
       </section>

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2018 12:44:43 -1000

>> I'm feeling lazy.  Care to suggest text to add and its location in 

thanks!

absent objections, I'll add it to the post-WGLC version.

d/

---

From: Ondřej Surý <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2018 14:10:16 +0200

I read the document and I think it’s good to go.

Ondrej
--
Ondřej Surý
[email-masked]

> On 25 Jun 2018, at 12:27, Benno Overeinder <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

---

From: Ray Bellis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2018 14:39:05 +0100

> I read the document and I think it’s good to go.

Same here.

Ray

---

From: Ondřej Surý <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2018 20:17:28 +0200

Oh, one more thing - I think it would be a good idea that this and attrleaf-fix would come as a bundle.

Ondrej
--
Ondřej Surý
[email-masked]

> On 26 Jun 2018, at 14:10, Ondřej Surý <[email-masked]> wrote:
>