2.3.18 DNS: Where Do We Go From Here? (dnsnext) BOF

Minutes of the DNS: Where Do We Go From Here? (dnsnext) WG

Michael A Patton(MAP) talked about the agenda and put up a list of suggested ideas previously, from his email.

Proposals about extended queries exist he mentioned three different semantics:

1. first matching
2. multiple matches
3. match all

There was request for large and variable number of root servers Someone wanted to address Name server mobility, this is issue when nameservers get renumbered. Discussion about disjoint root servers, ruled out of scope.

MAP asked for more items:

Matt Crawford
Non Terminal CNAMEs
Translate suffix of the queried domain
Query to be replaced with same initial part and translated suffix.

*.255.131.in-addr.arpa. CNAME in-addr.fnal.gov.

Counted Bit string
Length-of-label count bits not octets
pad data to octet, of course
To be considered as a sequence of 1-bit labels
(at an almost 16x space saving).

What they can do for IPv6

Bill Manning:
April 1994 Last testament of DNS working group,
How to do authoritative delegation on arbitrary bit boundaries,
April 1995 In-addr.arpa hack proposed. still not an RFC
Wants prefixes need to be represented in the domain name system. New working group should do it as it would be the best place to do it.

Olafur Gudmundsson:

How things should be changed around:

Randy Bush: this sounds more like incremental change than major change point

B. Manning: how about self-describing types (not asn.1)

MAP: brought up his master list and asked for ideas to be killed. T. Narten: asked that we asked following fundamental questions:

T/TCP only in the case of redesign

Randy Bush wants packet size to be top priority. Robert Watson wants internationalization, Ohta argued against that.

Discussion on what items had been marked so far.

Multicast support, discussion about what is needed, it boils down to RVP (rendezvous point) record need.

Ralph Dorms: Timed updates important, (lifetime ).

Matt Crawford asked what the possible outcomes are:

Discussion how to progress.

First question. Do we want to rewrite the existing documents similar to DRUMS? No one wants to work on rewrite documents.

Q: Is naming other things officially off the list? There seems to be consensus for this.

MAP talked about problems of name conflicts between hosts and names.

Is DNS directory service or not?
B. Manning: DNS is directory service for Internet infrastructure, new infrastructure requirements are stretching the definition what is needed.

Fight between Bill and Randy in the back of the room broken up.

MAP discussed the consequences of each possible outcome.

Donald, argued that Olafur's proposals should be postponed for right now but not taken of the tables,
Randy wants a proposal on the table before any action, for the big change.

MAP discussed the important issues




worked on today

Extended queries




Timed updates




Fixed compression




Indirect A records




Fix packet size




Improved inaddr




aut. Dns








binary names








John Curran: Needs timed updates
Matt Crawford: Non terminal CNAMEs,
???: Needs DNS working group for other groups to interact with.
Need A and AAAA returned in same answer

Ed Lewis: Better delegation structure in DNS.

MAP: IPv6 related stuff is sufficient to create a new group ?

DNSIND needs to be recasted to be something else

Randy wants vision for DNSng

MAP: covered the history of DNS working groups, there used to be DNS working group that discussed, protocol and operational issues and items.

Jeffrey Burgan: Internet area DNS working group will focus on protocol issues not operational ones. John Curran: existing Operational forums can cover operational issues.

Stuff work into DNSIND to solve the existing problems. Randy defends his moderation policies for namedroppers.

Summary of the BOF:

No need for a new working group, change charter for DNSIND.


None Received

Attendees List

go to list

Previous PageNext Page