Subject: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-roadblock-avoidance

From: Tim Wicinski <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2015 13:06:48 +0900

During the meeting, it appears that this draft is ready for Working 
Group Last Call, with one item looking for direction from the working group.

This starts a Working Group Last Call for
         draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-roadblock-avoidance

Current versions of the draft is available here:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-roadblock-avoidance/

Please review the draft and offer relevant comments. Also, if someone 
feels the document is *not* ready for publication, please speak out with 
your reasons.

Because of the issue that needs to be addressed, we’re going to run a 
four week  Working Group Last Call process.

The process ends on 5 December 2015.

thanks
tim

---

From: Bob Harold <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2015 12:07:55 -0500

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 11:06 PM, Tim Wicinski <[email-masked]> wrote:

>
> During the meeting, it appears that this draft is ready for Working Group
> Last Call, with one item looking for direction from the working group.
>
> Because of the issue that needs to be addressed, we’re going to run a four
> week  Working Group Last Call process.
>
> In "3.1.1. Supports UDP answers", in the last paragraph, I would also
accept a UDP response that had "TC=1", which could occur if the server
(using RRL) is under attack with spoofed addresses similar to this client.
Perhaps there are other conditions where a resolver will only answer UDP
queries with cookies or DTLS or other anti-spoofing assurances, that should
also be considered.  Also, is there a way for a resolver to indicate that
it only responds to TCP queries, and is that acceptable?

---

From: Petr Spacek <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 16:50:51 +0100

On 6.11.2015 05:06, Tim Wicinski wrote:
> 
> During the meeting, it appears that this draft is ready for Working Group Last
> Call, with one item looking for direction from the working group.
> 
> Please review the draft and offer relevant comments. Also, if someone feels
> the document is *not* ready for publication, please speak out with your reasons.
> 

BTW we are working on IPR disclosure related to an idea which very much fits
into this document. The additional text is available from
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg15848.html

I do not know how long it will take to incorporate it, but I believe that it
is an important addition for roaming clients and similar situations.

-- 
Petr Spacek  @  Red Hat