[dns-wg] Final RIPE 52 DNS WG minutes

Dear DNS WG,

here are the final edited meeting minutes for Istanbul. There were no
comments received for the draft version posted in
<http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/dns-wg/2006/msg00111.html>,
so the changes are a typo and a clarification of action item 52.3 only.

Thanks again to Adrian for the minutes and to Susannah and Caz for acting
as jabber proxies.

-Peter

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
		RIPE DNS WG minutes for RIPE 52, Istanbul
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
WG:		DNS
Meeting:	RIPE 52, Istanbul
Date-1:		Thursday, 27 April 2006
Time-1:		11:00 - 12:30 (UTC +0300)
Chair-1:	Peter Koch
Minutes-1:	Adrian Bedford
Jabber:		xmpp:dns at conference.ripe.net
J-Scribe-1:	Susannah Gray
J-Script-1:	http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-52/transcripts/dns.txt
Audio-1:	http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-52/podcasts/dns-01.mp3
WG URL:		http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/dns/
Material:	http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-52/presentations/index.html
Agenda:		http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-52/agendas/dns.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

0) Administrivia

   To remove the need for changeover between presenters, Andrei asked that
   items 4 and 5 be switched. The WG agreed to this.
   There were no other changes to the agenda.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) Status Reports

   o IANA Overview
     (David Conrad, IANA)
     <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-52/presentations/ripe52-dns-iana.pdf>

     Daniel Karrenberg commented on the proposed new IANA website, he was
     interested to see it was a draft and that feedback was encouraged.

     Jim Reid asked about the IDN testing and wondered if this would happen
     within the root zone or if there would be a test bed. David replied that
     this would be discussed in more depth in the next slot. If it were to
     happen within the root zone, IANA would be involved; otherwise they would
     not have a role in this.

   o IETF - DNSEXT, DNSOP and Others
     (Olaf Kolkman, NLnetLabs)
     <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-52/presentations/ripe52-dns-ietf.pdf>

     Ed Lewis asked about experiences people had with split view DNS. Around
     15 people said that they had. He also wondered if people who had
     inherited systems found them confusing. His questions lead him to ask
     how important the IETF documents were on this topic. Although the
     particular draft (draft-krishnaswamy-dnsop-dnssec-split-view) was more
     than a year old, there had been little comment. Olaf replied that there
     is a need for people to commit to work with the DNSEXT and DNSOP working
     groups and review papers. If there are not five people willing to do this,
     then the work is stalled.

     Carsten Schiefner asked if there was any relationship between the
     nameserver ID flag (draft-ietf-dnsext-nsid) and Host Identity Protocol
     (HIP). Olaf explained there was no relationship.

     Daniel Karrenberg commented that if using split DNS, it is vital to
     review your work regularly. The deployments out there use different
     nameservers to make for easier debugging. He added that maybe there
     is no current solution to the problem.

   o DNSSEC News/Statistics from the NCC
     (Brian Riddle, RIPE NCC)
     <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-52/presentations/ripe52-dns-dnssec-pr.pdf>

     Daniel Karrenberg suggested the RIPE NCC prepare a presentation on the
     causes of the extra network traffic (in excess of the predicted growth)
     for the next RIPE Meeting. This was accepted as an action item.

     Jim Reid asked what might be causing the additional 4% of CPU cycles.
     Brian promised to investigate and report back.

     Ed Lewis asked about registration activity and requested that the RIPE NCC
     report on how many signed zones and how many signed delegations exist
     in the NCC maintained reverse tree.
     Brian agreed to look into this and report back either through the
     working group mailing list or at the next meeting.

     Olaf commented that when writing ripe-352, the authors promised to look
     at the effects of DNSSEC on the amount of due queries. A paper on this
     is ready for publication on the NLnetLabs website.
     (post meeting hint: <http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/downloads/dnssec-effects.pdf>

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

2) Action Item Review
   (Peter Koch)
   <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/dns/dns-actions.html>

   48.1 This is still to be written up - ongoing
   48.2 Mans had made some progress, he will continue the work, including
	a SIG(0) approach and hopes to complete the work by the next RIPE
	Meeting
	- ongoing
   49.1 This is on hold as a presentation is being made to the NCC Services
	Working Group.
   49.2 Some work has been done. Jim will circulate a draft to Fernando and
	the DNS WG co-chairs in the coming weeks.
	- ongoing
   51.1 see plenary presentation on K-root
   51.2 see (4)
   51.3 Liman has still to write this up. It will possibly be handed over
	to the NCC Services Working Group. For now it will stay with this
	group until there is further clarification on the proposal.
	- ongoing
   51.4 - ongoing
   51.5 see (6)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

3) Anycast on K-Root
   (Lorenzo Colitti, RIPE NCC)
   <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-52/presentations/ripe52-dns-kroot-anycast.pdf>

   Daniel Karrenberg noted that he hoped everyone was happy with how the RIPE
   NCC was running K. Andrei later amplified this and outlined a few plans to
   deploy a further global node on the west coat of the US and then gradually
   more local nodes. They would look at where successful local nodes existed.
   He wanted to know that the community supported these plans.

   Comments were made that local nodes tended to have greater impact when
   deployed in places where there were no global nodes and in more remote
   locations. Daniel thanked him for these comments, but wished to point out
   that global nodes are paid for by the RIPE NCC as the operator, local nodes
   have a contribution made by local hosts.

   There was a question about whether the RIPE NCC could look into doing some
   work to compare experiences and impacts gained by other root operators and
   look at different set-ups in use. Lorenzo said he would personally find
   this interesting. Daniel Karrenberg backed this by saying he felt it would
   be useful work. He asked that anyone with suggestions should contact
   Lorenzo directly.

   Randy Bush wished to state that he was happy with how the service had been
   running so far. He had reported a bug and was encouraged by the response
   from the RIPE NCC to resolve the issue.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

5) Reverse DNS Quality
   (Brian Riddle, RIPE NCC)
   <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-52/presentations/ripe52-dns-lame_dns.pdf>

   George Michaelson commented that it was interesting that Brian felt the
   difference in measure might come down to methodology. He added that it
   might just be that APNIC have a higher level of lameness than the RIPE NCC.
   He attributed some of this to stronger admission controls within the domain
   update process. APNIC have discussed both tightening and weakening their
   rules. He concluded by saying that the reason that APNIC had 13% lame,
   compared with 9% in RIPE, came down to better running of the DNS.
   Olaf asked what definition was used of lames. Brian replied that a record
   was seen as lame whenever there was no authoritative answer for the SOA.

   Jim Reid observed that lameness will always be with us. We need to look at
   ways of dealing with it rather than keep trying to eliminate it completely.
   He did feel that we needed to do something from a point of view of
   operational impact and the resultant load that lameness placed on servers.
   It would be a good step to alleviate problems rather than just keep
   insisted to everyone that they should keep their DNS in good order. This
   presentation, he added, was follow-on from an incident that Jim noticed and
   flagged to the RIPE NCC. There was a lame delegation caused by a master
   being unathoritative for an extended period of time. There is a need to
   look at the issues around the progression of a slave secondary service, a
   part of doing this job responsibly is having some kind of policy and
   escalation mechanism for flagging lame master servers. This would make sure
   something is done before a zone expires on the slave servers.

   Carsten Schiefner said he would like to see some measures in place to check
   whether the nameserver set of the parent exactly matches the nameserver set
   announced by the master of the zone. People can change their configuration
   all the time and there can be nothing on the master server of the child
   zone.  He felt that monitoring this exact match would be an issue,
   particularly if these changes are also to be applied for ENUM zones. Peter
   Koch declared this out of scope for this discussion.

   Ed Lewis asked what would be done when something is lame and gives no
   response, should it be taken out of DNS and remove the NS record.  Brian
   asked for the community to give guidance on this. Peter Koch suggested that
   there be an action on the RIPE NCC to post their questions and write up a
   proposal and question to submit to the working group mailing list. This
   would be discussed further offline and formulated as action point.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

4) IP6.INT Phase Out
   (Andrei Robachevski, RIPE NCC)
   <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-52/presentations/ripe52-dns-ip6-int.pdf>

   There was a short discussion about the best way forward with this. A major
   concern was that all RIRs should coordinate their work to ensure that all
   IP6.INT delegations are pulled at the same time. David Conrad commented
   that as maintainer of the .INT domain he had asked about the impact of
   simply
   pulling IP6.INT through various mailing lists. He had seen little in the
   way of significant negative implications suggested if this happened. He was
   backed up on this by George Michealson, who commented that he had spent
   some time trying to find any IP6.INT queries without success. Joao and
   Daniel noted that if something serves no purpose, then it should go. There
   was a note of caution sounded by David Conrad. RIRs must work together and
   agree on a date for this to happen. David Kessens commented that it would
   be useful to discuss this topic further in the IPv6 Working Group later
   today.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

6) Proposal to Bring ENUM Zone Management in Line with the Reverse DNS
   (Andrei Robachevski, RIPE NCC)
   <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-52/presentations/ripe52-dns-enum-quality.pdf>

   Carsten Schiefner commented that he welcomed this proposal.

   Jim Reid stated that care was needed when it came to the top delegations
   under E164.ARPA concern national resources. There are issues of sovereignty
   and national interests. If we are going to report errors in the
   delegations, we need to handle it with a degree of sensitivity. It could
   impact on other things that are not directly connected with the RIPE NCC.
   Andrei replied that it was equally dangerous to keep errors in the
   delegation. Appropriate checks will stop the errors from propagating into
   the system. Daniel Karrenberg stressed that the RIPE NCC was sensitive to
   the issues, but the priority had to be to keep things working. The IAB
   would be informed as the party responsible for E164.ARPA.

   Carsten felt the actions remained unclear and that it was up to the group
   to define the actions. 51.5 was changed to 52.5 to work together to put
   forward a semi proposal, or a pre-formal proposal on this and the ENUM WG
   lists and coordinate between the two groups. Andrei saw two parts of the
   proposal. One side involved automating and making the existing system less
   error prone, this is just a call to improve the system. The other side was
   to look at doing regular lameness checks and looking at how the RIPE NCC
   should act on these. An action was put on Carsten to come up for a more
   formal proposal for discussion at working group level, it was felt this
   should not yet be put forward at the more formal level of the RIPE Policy
   Development Process.

   Andrei asked for consensus that this should go through to the Database
   Working Group to have the RIPE NCC automate checks. There was no objection.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date-2:		Thursday, 27 April 2006
Time-2:		16:00 - 17:00 (UTC +0300)
Chair-2:	Jaap Akkerhuis
Minutes-2:	Adrian Bedford
J-Scribe-2:	Caz Merrison
J-Script-2:	http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-52/transcripts/dns.txt
Audio-2:	http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-52/podcasts/dns-02.mp3
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

7) Plenaries Followup

   <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-52/presentations/ripe52-plenary-dnsamp.pdf>
   <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-52/presentations/ripe52-plenary-reflector_attacks_using_dns_infrastructure.pdf>
   <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-52/presentations/ripe52-plenary-enum-security.pdf>
   <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-52/presentations/ripe52-plenary-perils-transitive-trust-dns.pdf>
   <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-52/presentations/ripe52-plenary-kroot-anycast.pdf>
   <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-52/presentations/ripe52-plenary-dns-turkey.pdf>

   Time was given to discussions that followed on from presentations that
   happened during the plenary.

   There were several DNS related presentations in the plenary, of which
   "Security and ENUM" had been discussed in the ENUM Working Group.
   There was no feedback or questions from the room on any of those
   presentations.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

8) ICANN IDN guidelines & IDN Future
   (Marcos Sanz, DENIC)
   <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-52/presentations/ripe52-dns-ican-idn.pdf>

   During the presentation Patrik Fältström asked about the issue that arises
   when, for example, URLs such as deutschebank.de and deutsche-bank.de
   occurs. He wondered if this was the end of the problem. Marcos replied that
   he did not feel it was.

   Rob Blokzijl commented that although the presenter started out by saying it
   was unwise to look at domain name labels as words, he went on to talk about
   the confusion that occurs when this happens. Marcos agreed, pointing out
   that he was talking merely about the ICANN guidelines. There are
   assumptions made about what is in a domain name and he felt this was not
   the right direction to follow. Rob noted that language is a very rich thing
   and trying to constrain it in domain names was unwise. He did not feel that
   any rules or regulations would help.

   Olaf encouraged everyone to take a look at the IAB document which touched
   on the same type of issues raised here. It will be published after
   17 May 2006.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

9) Dynamic Registry Updates
   (John Dickinson, Nominet)
   <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-52/presentations/ripe52-dns-dynamic-updates.pdf>

   Jaap Akkerhuis asked if the work mentioned was available for public use.
   John replied that it was.

   Jim Reid asked if tools had been used to inspect the contents of journal
   files. John replied that this area had been left alone. He also wondered
   what type of sanity checking was in place when managing the updates. John
   replied that currently, all existing information was removed from zone
   files and then the updates made within the same transaction to avoid any
   errors or duplicate entries.

   Peter Koch asked for clarification on the point made that updates ran in
   batches of 500. John explained that updates happened every minute. Whatever
   was there was automatically updated, if there was less than 500, it would
   run anyway, if there were more than 500, they would be processed in
   consecutive batches of a maximum of 500 updates. The discussion then moved
   onto reliance on transfer methods, John stressed that backup methods were
   in place where there were potentials for communication errors. It was
   stressed that this was not to be seen as real-time dynamic updating. The
   TTL and SOA values had not been adjusted and there were no plans to do this.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

X) I/O with other WGs

   ENUM related issues were already covered under (6).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Y) AOB

   Peter Koch wished to follow up on a discussion in the Plenary. An Internet
   Draft will soon be published addressing both reflection and amplification
   attacks. He encouraged everyone here to read this and comment on it through
   both the DNS WG Mailing List and also through the IETF DNSOP List. A show
   of hands suggested a need to cross post the announcement about the draft.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Z) Wrap-Up & Close

   Jaap summarized the action items:

   52.1 RIPE NCC: investigate causes for extra DNSSEC network traffic
		(in excess of the predicted growth) and extra CPU cycles

   52.2 RIPE NCC: report number of signed zones and signed delegations in the
		reverse tree

   52.3 RIPE NCC: post questions and proposal to wg mailing list on how to
		deal with lame delegations when either the NCC is responsible
		for maintaining the parent or for running a (secondary) server
		for the child that is or is about to become delegated lame due
		to an unavailable *xfr source.
		[this is related to 48.1, but differs in that it should suggest
		ways forward for ns*.ripe.net]

   52.4 RIPE NCC: automate and streamline the process for ENUM delegations,
		including checks similar to those applied to the reverse tree

   52.5 Carsten Schiefner: [continued from 51.5] write a proposal for performing
		regular lameness checks in E164.ARPA and actions to follow

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------