Re: draft-gould-rfc4310bis-04.txt Submitted for Review

All,

I haven¹t heard any feedback on the idea of adding a client specified ttl
value and an optional server ttl returned in the info response used in a
similar fashion as the maxSigLife element.  The use case I see for this is
allowing the client to determine what the ttl is for the DS RRset and the
RRSIG resource record and for the client to have the option of decreasing
the ttl in support of a DNS hosting transfer, which could be part of a
sponsorship transfer.  To enable the DNS hosting transfer of a DNSSEC
enabled domain without going insecure by removing the DS records, the losing
DNS hosting provider needs to be capable of accepting the gaining DNS
hosting provider¹s public keys and the gaining DNS hosting provider¹s DS
needs to be added to the parent zone.   The switching of the name servers
has to wait for the longest of the ttl¹s (child and parent zone) to account
for DNS caching, so having visibility of the ttl of the DNSSEC resource
records of the server and to have the capability to adjust the ttl (down
during the transfer) could help with the DNS hosting transfer process.  If
such a feature needs to be added to rfc4310bis, I need to receive feedback
early this week to be included in the rfc4310bis 05 draft.  I plan on
publishing the rfc4310bis 05 draft on Wednesday that includes all of the
feedback received so far.

Thanks,  

-- 


JG 

-------------------------------------------------------
James F. Gould
Principal Software Engineer
VeriSign Naming Services
[email protected]
Direct: 703.948.3271
Mobile: 703.628.7063

 
21345 Ridgetop Circle
LS2-2-1
Dulles, VA 20166

Notice to Recipient:  This e-mail contains confidential, proprietary and/or
Registry  Sensitive information intended solely for the recipient and, thus
may not be  retransmitted, reproduced or disclosed without the prior written
consent of  VeriSign Naming and Directory Services.  If you have received
this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately by
telephone or reply e-mail and destroy the original message without making a
copy.  Thank you.



From: James Gould <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 11:04:46 -0500
To: EPP Provreg <[email protected]>
Conversation: draft-gould-rfc4310bis-04.txt Submitted for Review
Subject: Re: draft-gould-rfc4310bis-04.txt Submitted for Review

All,

I forgot about one item brought up by Klaus in a prior posting related to
inclusion of ttl in rfc4310bis.  What does the list feel about the need for
adding support for an optional client specified ttl value and an optional
server ttl returned in the info response used in a similar fashion as the
maxSigLife, meaning directly under the secDNS:create, secDNS:infData, and
under the secDNS:chg of the secDNS:update?  From my perspective this might
be useful in the handling of DNS hosting transfers, where the Registrant can
request for a reduced ttl for the DS RRset and the RRSIG resource record
when moving the DNSSEC enabled domain to another DNS hosting provider.  The
DNS hosting provider could obviously be another Registrar as part of a
sponsorship transfer.

Any thoughts to this is greatly appreciated.

According to the AD the last call review period will be extended and should
be on the IESG telechat agenda for March 4th, so I would like to incorporate
as much feedback as possible to the 04 draft in a soon to follow 05 draft.

Thanks,

-- 


JG 

-------------------------------------------------------
James F. Gould
Principal Software Engineer
VeriSign Naming Services
[email protected]
Direct: 703.948.3271
Mobile: 703.628.7063

 
21345 Ridgetop Circle
LS2-2-1
Dulles, VA 20166

Notice to Recipient:  This e-mail contains confidential, proprietary and/or
Registry  Sensitive information intended solely for the recipient and, thus
may not be  retransmitted, reproduced or disclosed without the prior written
consent of  VeriSign Naming and Directory Services.  If you have received
this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately by
telephone or reply e-mail and destroy the original message without making a
copy.  Thank you.



From: James Gould <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 23:07:31 -0500
To: EPP Provreg <[email protected]>
Conversation: draft-gould-rfc4310bis-04.txt Submitted for Review
Subject: draft-gould-rfc4310bis-04.txt Submitted for Review

All,

I submitted 04 of the draft.  The official draft is available at the URL
below:

http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-gould-rfc4310bis-04.txt

There are many updates from 03 described in Appendix A based on the feedback
on the list and privately.  These changes are substantial, so please review
it and provide me with your feedback as soon as possible.

I did not include anything in 04 related to Eduardo¹s active flag request
based on the variety of feedback on the provreg list that shows that it¹s
not ready for inclusion in rfc4310bis.  I encourage that the discussions
continue on the list for possible inclusion in a future draft.

Thanks,

-- 


JG 

-------------------------------------------------------
James F. Gould
Principal Software Engineer
VeriSign Naming Services
[email protected]
Direct: 703.948.3271
Mobile: 703.628.7063

 
21345 Ridgetop Circle
LS2-2-1
Dulles, VA 20166

Notice to Recipient:  This e-mail contains confidential, proprietary and/or
Registry  Sensitive information intended solely for the recipient and, thus
may not be  retransmitted, reproduced or disclosed without the prior written
consent of  VeriSign Naming and Directory Services.  If you have received
this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately by
telephone or reply e-mail and destroy the original message without making a
copy.  Thank you.