[dns-wg] DRAFT RIPE 53 DNS WG minutes

Dear WG,

here's an updated version and a separate file with just the small diffs.

> Please review the minutes, especially if you are quoted by name. The
> deadline for this first round is October, 30th. Thanks!

That's five days ...

-Peter
-------------- next part --------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  D R A F T [2] RIPE DNS WG minutes for RIPE 53, Amsterdam
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
WG:             DNS
Meeting:        RIPE 53, Amsterdam
Date-1:         Wednesday, 4 October 2006
Time-1:         16:00 - 17:00 (UTC +0200)
Chair-1:        Peter Koch
Minutes-1:      Adrian Bedford
Jabber:         xmpp:dns at conference.ripe.net
J-Scribe-1:     Susannah Gray
J-Script-1:     TBD
Audio-1:        TBD
WG URL:         http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/dns/
Material-1:     http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-53/presentations/wednesday.html
Agenda:         http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-53/agendas/dns.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Administrative Matters - Working Group Chairs

  <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-53/presentations/dns_agenda1.pdf>

   Appointment of scribe -- Adrian Bedford (RIPE NCC)
   Jabber monitor -- Susannah Gray (RIPE NCC)
   Agenda bashing -- no changes

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

B. Status Reports - Working Group Chairs

   IETF, DNSEXT, DNSOP and others
   (Olaf Kolkman, NLNet Labs)
   <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-53/presentations/dns_wg_update.pdf>

   Questions:
   Ole Jacobsen asked about the team set up to discuss operational aspects
   of DNS security. Although the aim of the team was to lead the rapid
   deployment of the technology, little has been heard since it inception
   almost two years ago.

   Olaf replied that the DNSSEC deployment initiative led by Steve Crocker is
   essentially a web-based forum. There is a move to involve more people. It
   certainly remains a good place to go to find information or help with the
   deployment of DNSSEC in any organisation.
   In terms of results, Olaf feels there is much going on behind the
   scenes. He clarified that there is no formal liaison between the forum
   and the IETF.

   ICANN/IANA Update
   (John Crain, ICANN)
   <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-53/presentations/icann_dns_wg.pdf>

   Questions:
   Rob Blokzijl asked why there was a move to retire old ccTLDs.
   He could see no technical reason to do this. John agreed that there was
   no compelling reason. He added that the question remained about whether
   this should be done. Rob pointed out that current guidelines preclude
   reuse of ISO3166 country codes for a period of five years. New guidelines
   will change this to 50 years. Carsten Schiefner commented that .cs was
   reused recently. Previously it was the code for Czechoslovakia; it was
   then used for Serbia and Montenegro.

   CENTR
   (Marcos Sanz, DENIC)
   <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-53/presentations/centr.pdf>

   Questions:
   Peter Koch asked if interested operators might be able to present at the
   normally closed CENTR tech meetings. Marcos said the meetings were not open
   in general, but guests were allowed if an active contribution is planned,
   provided there was not a confidential matter under discussion.

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

C. Action Items Review
   (Working Group Chairs)
   The action list for the working group was reviewed.
   <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/dns/dns-actions.html>

   48.1 Peter Koch has written this up in an Internet draft.
        <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-koch-dns-unsolicited-queries-00.txt>
        [[Ongoing]]

   48.2 Mans Nilsson -- TSIG/SIG(0) for ns.ripe.net
        [[Ongoing]]

   48.4 David Malone -- AAAA misbehavior.
        <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-53/presentations/aaa.pdf>

        Dave Wilson gave a short presentation on the issue on behalf of Dave
        Malone. The document has been written and circulated to the list. There
        is a question about whether this document would just repeat work done
        elsewhere in the Internet Protocol Journal.

        After a show of hands, it was decided to mark the item done and regard
        the IPJ article as the authoritative source.
        [[Done, pending mailing list approval]]

   49.1 Peter Koch -- DNS Hostcount successor requirements
        Peter is to discuss this with RIPE NCC staff.
        [[Ongoing]]

   49.2 Jim Reid -- Server Migration Document
        A document will go to the review panel after this meeting and be
        circulated through the working group mailing list. Hopefully, this
        can be marked as completed in time for RIPE 54.
        [[Ongoing]]

   51.1 RIPE NCC -- K-Root anycast measurement
        The publication of the report from the RIPE NCC is nearing publication.
        After this happens, the working group will then need to decide whether
        to ask the RIPE NCC to look into other types of measurement.
        [[Ongoing, draft RIPE document to be last called]]

   51.3 Lars-Johan Liman -- NCC Secondary Service Policy
        Lars commented that the RIPE NCC has announced it will limit
        involvement in provision of slave servers for TLDs. Lars suggested
        this be closed for now and marked as overtaken by events.
        The working group agreed.
        [[Done, pending mailing list approval]]

   51.4 Peter Koch -- ripe-203 Update
        [[Ongoing]]

   Brett Carr gave an update on the various outstanding actions on the RIPE
   NCC
   <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-53/presentations/ncc_dnswg_update.pdf>

   52.1 Report into the causes for extra DNSSEC network traffic.
        [[Ongoing]]

   52.2 Report numbers of signed zones and delegations in reverse tree

        Jim suggested this be considered closed, but ask the RIPE NCC to give
        regular updates once or twice a year. As a result, this will remain
        a standing item on the working group agenda.
        [[Done]]

   Questions:
   Max Tulyev asked why there are so few DNSSEC delegations.
   Brett replied that the answer for this would lie with the community.
   He agreed with comments from Max that people need to understand the
   benefits and that implementation is easy.

   52.3 Lame delegation proposal
        WG Last call to be issued, chairs to discuss and declare consensus
        [[Ongoing]]

   52.4 Automate and streamline ENUM delegation process.
        [[Done]]

   52.5 Carsten Schiefner -- Proposal for regular lameness checks in e164.arpa
        Carsten has reported on this in the ENUM working group. They will come
        up with a task force to take this work forward and report at RIPE 54.
        Carsten suggests that the DNS working group mark this action as closed.
        [[Done]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date-2:         Thursday, 5 October 2006
Time-2:         11:00 - 12:30 (UTC +0200)
Chair-2:        Jim Reid
Minutes-2:      Adrian Bedford
J-Scribe-2:     Susannah Gray
WG URL:         http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/dns/
Material-2:     http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-53/presentations/thursday.html
J-Script-2:     TBD
Audio-2:        TBD
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Plenary Follow Up
   (Working Group Chairs)

   There was a discussion around the issues raised by Duane Wessels on
   problems with DNS and Steve Gibbard on DNS Infrastructure Distribution.

   Jim Reid commented that much of what Duane had said was reasonably valid
   and much was already good practice, such separating out authoritative
   and caching-only nameservers and issues surrounding lameness. Jim
   however did take exception to was the talk of using TCP-based DNS
   queries. He pointed out that most DNS clients will make a single DNS
   lookup before taking any action. Using TCP for this seemed somewhat
   inefficient, considering the small amounts of data that are being
   transferred. It would also add to latency. A high latency, low bandwidth
   network or one with a busy nameserver might find handling short-lived
   TCP connections painful.

   Olaf Kolkman mentioned that he had heard that under a DoS attack, an
   operator had first sent back a result with a TC-bit leading to a re-test
   on TCP, after this the UDP source was white listed. Duane confirmed that
   there is a company producing software that can create a white list in
   this way.

   Replying to Jim's concerns about using TCP on busy servers, he stated
   that there are applications that can handle large volumes of queries
   each second. He also agreed that maintaining state for TCP would be painful.

   Lars Liman asked Duane to clarify if he thought TCP should be a
   preferred transport. Duane said that he did suggest this. Lars voiced
   the general mood that high TCP loads would be painful for a server.
   Duane commented that it would still be preferable to a DDos attack. Lars
   clarified that he was not against using TCP, but felt unable to advocate
   using it as his preferred mode of transport. The first defence against a
   DDos attack would be to rate limit the traffic in his upstream router.

   Ed Lewis favoured the expansion of DNS beyond its use in root servers;
   it is a quick reacting database. Recommending using TCP as a default way
   of contacting DNS goes against its very nature. He also recognises that
   the way UDP uses DNS manifests considerable problems, which is perhaps
   why Duane sees TCP as the best way to go. Ed felt the group should first
   look at the UDP problem in terms of operational practices, buffers and
   the brakes put on its use. The working group might like to look into
   suggestions for time-outs and back-offs, maintaining statistics about
   efficient routing and so on.

   Jim concurred that this was a good point. There was a short discussion
   about whether the DNS Working Group is the right arena for such
   investigation. Jim suggested that it might be worth the working group
   gathering information about the work done by various parties and put
   them into a single document identifying key elements of operational best
   current practice.

   Lars asked if anyone had previously measured the difference between DNS
   over UDP and DNS locked down to TCP. It would appear that little
   specific work has been done already in this area.

   Peter Koch commented that creating a RIPE Document or bibliography style
   web page containing links to the various best common practices within
   DNS operation is not a bad idea. Lars pointed out that an operator
   facing a problem might not first think of looking at the RIPE Document
   Store for information about how to resolve his problems. Keith Mitchell
   commented that a project to address this was under way with ORAC. Lars
   Liman suggested that this might be well incorporated into a conventional
   book.

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

E. Software Update
   (Joao Damas, ISC)
   <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-53/presentations/software_update.pdf>

   There was a short discussion after Peter Koch asked who in the room was
   already using BIND 9.4 and had found issues with how it handles zones.
   It was clear this needed some attention, introduction of checks on
   sibling glue seems to have caused some problems. Joao replied that there
   is no solution as yet. The change simply produces warnings, although it
   can produce many of these depending on the zone in question. He pointed
   out that it is possible to disable that check. Jim asks about the new
   resolver library. He wanted know if this now meant that the lightweight
   resolver library (LWRES) was to be phased out. He asked if anyone was
   using LWRES. Joao said it was impossible to say.

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

F. PowerDNS Update (PowerDNS Recursor)
   (Bert Hubert, PowerDNS/Netherlabs)
   <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-53/presentations/powerdns_update.pdf>

   Tomas Simonaitis asked if PowerDNS was scalable. Bert replied it can
   scale as each instance operates independently and does not communicate
   with another. They do not share a cache. There is a chance that in the
   future, PowerDNS will look at cache sharing. Roy Arends asked if
   dnsreplay, dnsstat and dnsscope are publicly available. Bert confirmed
   that they were all in the PowerDNS repository. Roy asked if the recursor
   also dealt with unknown records. Bert said that it did.

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

G. OARC Update
   (Keith Mitchell, ISC)
   <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-53/presentations/oarc_update.pdf>

   Lars Liman commented that it was important to be aware of problems with
   protecting privacy laws when researching DNS data. There are some
   nations that impose far stricter rules on how such data can be used than
   others do. Keith replied that the OARC secretariat is aware of these
   rules and the various regulations around data protection.

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

H. CADR
   (Bill Manning)
   <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-53/presentations/caadr_update.pdf>

   After the presentation, Bill did a demonstration using live data. There
   were no questions on the presentation.

   Geoff Huston asked if the web interface was necessary to do the work.
   Bill replied that this was necessary to ensure any updates were made
   correctly.

   Ed Lewis asked how do I find all the other delegations to change when
   changing glue records. Bill replied that it did not really matter as
   changes did not need to be synchronized between all of them. The child
   would change the list. Host records are equivalent in peering terms, to
   a registry or delegation. To change the attributes for a record, it is
   necessary to log in as an administrator and change the glue records.

   Ed felt that although the application demonstrated by Bill was useful,
   it might not suit all registries due to the different issues each faced.
   Bill agreed that not everything should be run the same way throughout
   the DNS.

   Peter Koch wondered if it might be better to feed the glue from the data
   that has been verified through DNSSEC, rather than from host registrations.
   Bill agreed that it would and that it should work in 98% of cases.

   Jim Reid mentioned Keyman used by .se. He wondered if CADR could be used
   in the .se environment. Bill felt Lars could answer better on this. Lars
   gave his personal opinion on this. There is a fundamental difference
   between CADR and Keyman models. The difference lies in authorisation.
   Keyman is based on individual generating a certificate that has to be
   signed by a selected group of CAs. The certificate is installed into a
   browser that then handles authentication. Although both models pick up
   their data from live DNS, CADR relies on DNS signatures. Bill clarified
   that the CADR web interface relied on user ID and password authentication.
   Anyone could request the change, but if it was not visible in the
   nameservers, then nothing would happen.

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

X. I/O with other WGs

   Already dealt with under action item 52.5.

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

Y. AOB

   No other items were raised.

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

Z. Wrap Up and Close

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
--- MINUTES53.txt	2006/10/11 19:12:41	1.2
+++ MINUTES53.txt	2006/10/25 14:50:43
@@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-  D R A F T [1] RIPE DNS WG minutes for RIPE 53, Amsterdam
+  D R A F T [2] RIPE DNS WG minutes for RIPE 53, Amsterdam
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 WG:             DNS
-Meeting:        RIPE 53, Istanbul
+Meeting:        RIPE 53, Amsterdam
 Date-1:         Wednesday, 4 October 2006
 Time-1:         16:00 - 17:00 (UTC +0200)
 Chair-1:        Peter Koch
@@ -66,9 +66,9 @@
 
    Questions:
    Peter Koch asked if interested operators might be able to present at the
-   normally closed CENTR meetings. Marco said that active participation in
-   the meetings was encouraged, provided there was not a confidential matter
-   under discussion.
+   normally closed CENTR tech meetings. Marcos said the meetings were not open
+   in general, but guests were allowed if an active contribution is planned,
+   provided there was not a confidential matter under discussion.
 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------