[comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains] Domain Name System @ Boulder IETF

almquist@JESSICA.STANFORD.EDU ("Philip Almquist") (11/29/90)

	The DNS Working Group meeting at the IETF will be a single
two-hour session on Monday afternoon.  The major purpose of the session
will be (re)organizational, deciding on and planning projects for the
coming months.

	Also, the X.400 Working Group will be discussing use of the
domain name system for mapping between domain names and X.400 names.  I
don't plan to discuss their proposal in our meeting, but I hope that
some of you DNS wizards will take the time to read their draft and give
them thoughtful comments.  From their agenda:
>
> [Wednesday] Morning Session: 	
> 
> 	Discussion & Markup of the paper:
> 
> 	"Draft Proposal for the use of the Internet DNS to maintain
> 	RFC 987/RFC 1148 Address Mapping Tables"
> 
> 	The goal of this session is to review this draft and modify as
> 	necessary in preparation of its submission as an internet draft.
> 	This will be the last chance for the working group to review the document
> 	before it is submitted as an internet draft. Once submitted as an I-D,
> 	I expect sites begin to implement, so it is important that we reach
> 	consensus on issues raised in the document. 
> 
> 	This paper may be retrieved by anonymous ftp from janeb.cs.wisc.edu
> 	(128.105.2.151) in the pub directory:
> 
> 	-r--r--r--  1 ftp         29553 Nov 26 17:03 dns987.out
> 	-r--r--r--  1 ftp         66845 Nov 26 17:03 dns987.ps
> 
> 	Please do not come to this session unless you have read the document
> 	and have comments.
>
For further information on the X.400 group meeting, contact Rob Hagens
(hagens@cs.wisc.edu).

	Now, back to the subject of the Domain Working Group meeting.
In order to get you thinking about what the group ought to be doing, here
are a number of ideas from various sources, including the survey I sent
to the namedroppers and bind mailing lists several weeks ago:

   1. Consider  and  perhaps  pass  judgement on the resource record types
      proposed in RFC-1183 (AFS Data Base  Location,  Responsible  Person,
      X25, ISDN, and Route Through).

   2. Figure  out  if the MB and MG resource record types really work.  If
      so attempt to get them widely deployed.  If not, design replacements
      for them.

   3. Define and standardize an Autonomous System Number resource record.

   4. Add QCLASSes for non-IP protocols, such as DECNet.

   5. Attempt to get the HS QCLASS more widely deployed.

   6. Attempt to understand and document the issues involved in the use of
      multiple  QCLASSes  (for  example,  the  semantics  of  queries  for
      QCLASS=*).

   7. Add  load  balancing  to  the DNS.  {I think this has been done, but
      perhaps we need to get it written up and/or get  the  software  more
      widely distributed}.

   8. Create a DNS MIB.

   9. Figure  out  if  and  how the domain name system can be made to give
      different answers to the same question depending on the identity  of
      the  asker.    In particular, is there any good way to make parts of
      the name space private?

  10. Figure out and document the safest way to  set  up  fake  root  name
      servers.

  11. Document better the ways in which a resolver or recursive server can
      detect and recover from being referred to a dead or sick server.

  12. Figure out if it's possible  and  desirable  to  restrict  a  domain
      server to talking to "nearby" root servers.

  13. Consider  what  steps  the  Internet ought to take to protect itself
      against the periodic problems it has with bogus servers claiming  to
      be authoritative for "." or "*".

  14. Evaluate  short-term  measures to improve, or at least describe, the
      security of the domain name system.  Can we, for  example,  describe
      how  a  server  or  resolver  might  decide  that  a  given piece of
      information should not be believed?

  15. Consider whether it is possible and desirable for domain servers  to
      perform RoboDoc-like sanity checks on their own configurations.

  16. Figure  out  whether  compression (DNS-style compression of names in
      resource records) can or should be used in zone transfers.

  17. Figure out a policy for deciding that a new resource record type has
      become sufficiently "well-known" that compression may be used.

  18. Consider  whether  there  are procedural changes we might suggest to
      the NIC which would help to ensure that network  administrators  are
      aware  of  the  need  to register the servers for their IN-ADDR.ARPA
      domains.

  19. Consider (and perhaps document our recommendations about) when it is
      appropriate  to  have  resource  records  (other than SOA and NS) at
      non-leaf nodes of the domain tree.

  20. Create a catalog of DNS software.  {I believe that Paul  Mockapetris
      has been working on this}.

							Philip