May 2005 - dns-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Re: [dns-wg] Followup to IANA TLD delegation problem
by Jim Reid 30 May '05

30 May '05

>>>>> "Olivier" == Olivier Guillard / AFNIC <Olivier.Guillard(a)nic.fr> writes: Olivier> It is not perfectly clear for me what kind of Olivier> contribution you are waiting for to help moving forward, Olivier> and the kind of actions you see as conceivable to be Olivier> undertaken by the dns-wg ? My apologies for any confusion Olivier. My earlier mail was intended to provoke a discussion on the list. This discussion would hopefully allow the WG to reach consensus on: (a) if there were outstanding issues along the lines of the questions I posed; and (b) what the WG felt the next steps to resolve those issues could be. The response so far seems to be that further clarification is required but it's not critical. So if that's the consensus of the WG, the promised response from Doug could well be enough to close this issue. It's really up to the WG to decide what happens. If nobody cares, we just let things drop. If it's felt to be *really* important, then the WG could make another formal communication to ICANN/IANA. If the consensus is somewhere in between these two extremes, it may well be enough to wait for Doug's reply to my questions. As WG chair, I'd just like to find out what the WG's position is.

2 1

Re: [dns-wg] Followup to IANA TLD delegation problem
by Marcel Schneider 30 May '05

30 May '05

On Monday, 30 May 2005, Olivier Guillard / AFNIC writes: Dear all > as one of those that was looking for a path to operationaly > circumvent this new IANA policy, may I thank the dns-wg that > have clearly stated with others that "there is no technical > reason in the DNS protocols preventing this practice (aka: > "use different [NS] names for the same address"). To support Olivier's point: we also were relieved to hear from Doug Barton that no such policy was introduced. My question to Jim and maybe Jaap is: how did you became aware that ICANN/ IANA would or already has introduced such measures ? Unfortunately we at SWITCH do not hear the grass growing and were catched by surprise. It is important that we all fully understand the issue to learn from it. Marcel > The questions you raise now are very valid : >> [1] What was the nature of the technical problem that prevented >> multiple names in for an IP address and how was it resolved? >> >> [2] Why was there no announcement that this problem existed? >> >> [3] Are safeguards now in place to prevent this sort of problem >> recurring? >> >> [4] What procedures does IANA (or ICANN?) have to make sure that >> changes to the TLD delegation process or problems with that process >> are properly communicated to its stakeholders? >> >> [5] Were those procedures followed for this incident? If not, why not? > BTW, above the specific multinamming issue, they are now among the > core ones that need to be taken seriously by the DNS community in > my view. > I have looked in the dns-wg charter : > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/dns/index.html > It is not perfectly clear for me what kind of contribution you are > waiting for to help moving forward, and the kind of actions you see > as conceivable to be undertaken by the dns-wg ? > Thanks, > Olivier > le mardi 24 mai à 11 H 47 , Jim Reid a ecrit : >> You'll all have seen the response from Doug Barton confirming that the >> technical problem has been fixed. It is now permitted to have multiple >> names for the same IP address in a TLD delegation from the root. That >> particular aspect of the discussion should be considered closed IMO >> because the problem has been resolved. However, there are some other >> things that I'd like the WG to consider and discuss. These concern the >> process and transparency issues that have been highlighted by this >> problem. >> >> I wonder if the WG would like to pursue these? >> >> In particular, I'd like the WG to consider if we should pursue answers >> to the following questions: >> >> [1] What was the nature of the technical problem that prevented >> multiple names in for an IP address and how was it resolved? >> >> [2] Why was there no announcement that this problem existed? >> >> [3] Are safeguards now in place to prevent this sort of problem >> recurring? >> >> [4] What procedures does IANA (or ICANN?) have to make sure that >> changes to the TLD delegation process or problems with that process >> are properly communicated to its stakeholders? >> >> [5] Were those procedures followed for this incident? If not, why not? >> >> If anyone here has more questions about this incident, please post >> them. If there's consensus in the WG that this matter needs further >> action, then we need to decide what the next steps, if any, should be. >> I'd welcome a discussion and comments. >> >> It's now over to you, the list members.... > -- > Olivier

1 0

Followup to IANA TLD delegation problem
by Jim Reid 30 May '05

30 May '05

You'll all have seen the response from Doug Barton confirming that the technical problem has been fixed. It is now permitted to have multiple names for the same IP address in a TLD delegation from the root. That particular aspect of the discussion should be considered closed IMO because the problem has been resolved. However, there are some other things that I'd like the WG to consider and discuss. These concern the process and transparency issues that have been highlighted by this problem. I wonder if the WG would like to pursue these? In particular, I'd like the WG to consider if we should pursue answers to the following questions: [1] What was the nature of the technical problem that prevented multiple names in for an IP address and how was it resolved? [2] Why was there no announcement that this problem existed? [3] Are safeguards now in place to prevent this sort of problem recurring? [4] What procedures does IANA (or ICANN?) have to make sure that changes to the TLD delegation process or problems with that process are properly communicated to its stakeholders? [5] Were those procedures followed for this incident? If not, why not? If anyone here has more questions about this incident, please post them. If there's consensus in the WG that this matter needs further action, then we need to decide what the next steps, if any, should be. I'd welcome a discussion and comments. It's now over to you, the list members....

7 6

Fwd: Questions on IANA TLD Operations
by Jim Reid 21 May '05

21 May '05

Here's the latest response from Doug. He confirms that IANA does permit multiple names for the same IP address for delegations in the root zone. I trust we can now consider this matter closed. Begin forwarded message: > From: Doug Barton <doug.barton(a)icann.org> > Date: May 21, 2005 20:53:13 BST > To: Jim Reid <jim(a)rfc1035.com> > Cc: iana(a)iana.org, Daniel <dfk(a)ripe.net>, Mohsen Souissi > <Mohsen.Souissi(a)nic.fr>, Jaap Akkerhuis <jaap(a)nlnetlabs.nl>, "Olaf M. > Kolkman" <olaf(a)ripe.net>, Lars-Johan Liman <liman(a)autonomica.se>, > Barbara Roseman <barbara.roseman(a)icann.org>, Peter Koch <pk(a)denic.de>, > Olivier Guillard <Olivier.Guillard(a)nic.fr>, philippe.lubrano(a)nic.fr > Subject: Re: Questions on IANA TLD Operations > > On Sat, 21 May 2005, Jim Reid wrote: > >> On May 21, 2005, at 04:09, Doug Barton wrote: >> >>> Thank you for raising this issue, my response is below. Please let >>> me know if you intend to forward this to the WG. Otherwise I am >>> happy to do so. >> >> Doug, many thanks for the timely reply. It was unfortunate that you >> were unable to be in Stockholm when this issue was raised at the WG. >> >> However I have to say that your reply leaves me as confused as I was >> when we sent the email to yourself and Barbara. Perhaps I've not had >> enough caffeine today to get the neurons firing. Your mail says "the >> problem is now fixed" without clarifying which problem you are >> referring to. One interpretation of your remarks could be that the >> problem with the .fr delegation has been resolved because AFNIC has >> applied the workaround you suggested. That interpretation of course >> leaves the questions we asked unanswered. Could you please give me a >> clear and unequivocal answer to this question: "Are TLDs permitted to >> register a hostname for their delegation when there is another >> hostname in the root zone for the same IP address?" Thanks. > > Yes. I do not know how to make it more unequivocal than that. :) > > I'm sorry that you found my answer confusing. One of the reasons it > took so long to produce (in addition to the fact that until Monday I > am technically still on leave) is that I had several people review it > to make sure that it was clear. I am sensitive to your point that > English is not the first language for many of the RIPE community, and > I appreciate your asking for clarification. > >> As far as forwarding your reply to the WG list is concerned, I think >> this should be my responsibility. > > That's totally appropriate, and I see that you have already done that, > thank you. My only concern is that given the fact that this issue was > raised in the WG, I want to be sure that they are informed of the > response. > > Regards, > > Doug > > -- > Doug Barton > General Manager, The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority >

1 0

Fwd: Questions on IANA TLD Operations
by Jim Reid 21 May '05

21 May '05

Here is the response we received from Doug Barton to the questions that we asked. I'm still confused. It's not clear to me what problem has been fixed or if IANA will now permit TLD delegations to include hostnames that have the same IP address as existing hostnames in the root zone. I've asked Doug for clarification: a clear statement whether this is or isn't permitted. I'll keep you informed of developments. Stay tuned.... Begin forwarded message: > From: Doug Barton <doug.barton(a)icann.org> > Date: May 21, 2005 04:09:03 BST > To: Jim Reid <jim(a)rfc1035.com> > Cc: Barbara Roseman <barbara.roseman(a)iana.org>, iana(a)iana.org, Daniel > <dfk(a)ripe.net>, Mohsen Souissi <Mohsen.Souissi(a)nic.fr>, Jaap Akkerhuis > <jaap(a)nlnetlabs.nl>, "Olaf M. Kolkman" <olaf(a)ripe.net>, Lars-Johan > Liman <liman(a)autonomica.se>, Peter Koch <pk(a)denic.de>, Olivier > Guillard <Olivier.Guillard(a)nic.fr>, philippe.lubrano(a)nic.fr > Subject: Re: Questions on IANA TLD Operations > > Jim, > > Thank you for raising this issue, my response is below. Please let me > know if you intend to forward this to the WG. Otherwise I am happy to > do so. > > In November of 2004 IANA received a request from AFNIC to add new > hostnames > for IP addresses of name servers that already existed in the root zone. > While there were a few examples of this already in the zone, this type > of > request is rare, and produced an unexpected result. ICANN has been > informed that this problem is now permanently fixed. > > Because at the time AFNIC submitted the recent request for > modifications to the RE ccTLD IANA had not yet been informed that the > problem was fixed, we asked them to choose a method of reaching their > operational goals other than adding new instances of the hostnames > that resolve to the same IP address. Because the problem is now fixed, > this will not be necessary in the future. > > I'm sorry that I did not get a chance to discuss these issues with you > in > person at the Stockholm meeting, as you noted I was called home > suddenly for > personal reasons. I do appreciate this opportunity to explain the > issues > involved, and I look forward to discussing it with you further if you > so > desire. > > Kind Regards, > > Doug > > -- > Doug Barton > General Manager, The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority > > > Jim Reid wrote: >> Apologies in advance for the cast of thousands on this message... >> I'm sending this on behalf of the co-chairs of the RIPE DNS Working >> Group in response to a discussion during RIPE50 last week. >> Dear Colleagues, >> This note follows a discussion at the DNS Working Group during last >> week's RIPE meeting. Doug was unable to take part in this discussion >> because he was called away early. Therefore we have sent you this >> message so that we can clear up any possible misunderstandings and >> hopefully avoid invoking more formal mechanisms. >> The RIPE DNS Working Group is concerned about some aspects of the >> current practice regarding IANA TLD operations. In particular the >> problems encountered by AFNIC last month are unsettling. >> It is our understanding that IANA has recently stopped accepting >> certain updates to the DNS root zone. The current practice now appears >> to require each particular network address used in glue address RRs to >> have one unique DNS name. This requirement is new: multiple names >> already exist in the root zone for some name server addresses. There >> is no technical reason in the DNS protocols preventing this practice. >> Important technical and operational goals can require TLD operators to >> use different names for the same address. The most obvious of these is >> more efficient name compression to make room for additional data in >> responses. Multiple names for the same address can reduce the amount >> of co-ordination required in case of name server address changes. >> We do not understand why this requirement has been introduced or the >> process by which it was agreed. The RIPE DNS Working Group is >> disappointed that this change appears to have been carried out by IANA >> without prior consultation or discussion. We would like to know >> rationale for this policy and the mechanism which led to its >> introduction. We'd appreciate any clarifications from you before >> Friday, >> May 20th. >> Regards >> ..... >> chairs RIPE DNS WG >

1 0

Jose A Campos is out of the office.
by jose.a.campos＠exxonmobil.com 14 May '05

14 May '05

I will be out of the office starting 05/09/2005 and will not return until 05/16/2005. For emergencies, please call Network Operations (713-656-1548).

1 0

IANA TLD delegation issue
by Jim Reid 14 May '05

14 May '05

Here is a copy of the mail that has just been sent to IANA in followup to the discussion during last week's RIPE meeting. My thanks to those who have helped draft this message so promptly. I will keep the WG informed of developments. Dear Colleagues, This note follows a discussion at the DNS Working Group during last week's RIPE meeting. Doug was unable to take part in this discussion because he was called away early. Therefore we have sent you this message so that we can clear up any possible misunderstandings and hopefully avoid invoking more formal mechanisms. The RIPE DNS Working Group is concerned about some aspects of the current practice regarding IANA TLD operations. In particular the problems encountered by AFNIC last month are unsettling. It is our understanding that IANA has recently stopped accepting certain updates to the DNS root zone. The current practice now appears to require each particular network address used in glue address RRs to have one unique DNS name. This requirement is new: multiple names already exist in the root zone for some name server addresses. There is no technical reason in the DNS protocols preventing this practice. Important technical and operational goals can require TLD operators to use different names for the same address. The most obvious of these is more efficient name compression to make room for additional data in responses. Multiple names for the same address can reduce the amount of co-ordination required in case of name server address changes. We do not understand why this requirement has been introduced or the process by which it was agreed. The RIPE DNS Working Group is disappointed that this change appears to have been carried out by IANA without prior consultation or discussion. We would like to know rationale for this policy and the mechanism which led to its introduction. We'd appreciate any clarifications from you before Friday, May 20th. Regards ..... chairs RIPE DNS WG

2 1

Re: [dns-wg] WG Agenda for RIPE50
by Jim Reid 06 May '05

06 May '05

>>>>> "Roy" == Roy Arends <roy(a)dnss.ec> writes: Roy> The term "GLUE RECORDS" is defined in rfc-1033 (yeah, dusted Roy> off): Roy> If the name server host for a particular domain is itself Roy> inside the domain, then a 'glue' record will be needed. A Roy> glue record is an A (address) RR that specifies the address Roy> of the server. Glue records are only needed in the server Roy> delegating the domain, not in the domain itself. As well as being illegal evidence -- thanks Peter! -- the last sentence above is ambiguous. It can be interpreted as implying the glue record in the parent means the child doesn't have to have an A (or AAAA) record for the name server. Roy> in-bailiwick glue is a pleonasm while out-of-bailiwick glue Roy> is an oxymoron. The terminology may not be defined clearly. However the concept of out-of-bailiwick glue is something we all understand.

2 1

WG Agenda for RIPE50
by Jim Reid 05 May '05

05 May '05

The WG Agenda for RIPE50 is now being compiled. Please send details of any suggestions or contributions to the WG chairs: dns-wg-chair(a)ripe.net. Thanks. Note that a new structure for RIPE meetings will be tried in Stockholm. Reports from other meetings -- eg IETF, CENTR -- are supposed to now go in the extended plenary at the start of the week. Detailed technical and policy discussions are intended for the WG sessions at the end of the week. At this time it's too early to say when the WG will meet and for how long. The meeting plan won't be finalised until there's a better idea of what's on the agendas of each WG. So it will help us to help you by letting us know what should be on the WG agenda in Stockholm.

4 8

Action Item 48.1: Lame Delegations -- first draft
by Peter Koch 05 May '05

05 May '05

Dear all, here is a first draft addressing action item 48.1 on lame delegation problems on large scale name servers. It's a -00 kind of document mainly issuing the problem statement. Although there are some hours left, I don't expect anyone to have read it by the WG meeting. An HTML version may be made available later and depending on how the PDP evolves, we might want or need to inject it into the policy developing engine. Comments are welcome! -Peter

2 1