June 2015 - rssac-caucus - lists.icann.org

[rssac-caucus] RSSAC Public Session in Buenos Aires.
by Lars-Johan Liman June 26, 2015

June 26, 2015

I would like to extend my thanks to Joe Abley who gave an excellent update on the works of the TTL project on behalf of the work party during the RSSAC public session here in Buenos Aires. ... and of course also to the entire TTL work party for very hard work and good results so far. Without you there would not have been anything to present! My warmest thanks! /Liman

4 3

[rssac-caucus] Video: Etiquetas serigrafia impresso!
by Peter June 24, 2015

June 24, 2015

[1][Bags-01_zpsbk5lpt2m.png] Use etiquetas serigrafia impresso! Não há camisas mais coceira, economizar no custo por etiqueta e reduz o tempo de produção [2][Tagless-video-01_zpsyxeemami.png] [3][Tagless-video-02_zpsjqxrxiwl.png] [4]MAIS SOBRE RÓTULOS [5]CONSTRUIR SU PROPIO [6]RETORNO DO INVESTIMENTO [7][Tagless-footer-01_zpsz5hbun7v.png] [8][Tagless-footer-02_zpsqjsp40ln.png] [9][Tagless-footer-03_zpswv56nfht.png] [10][Tagless-footer-04-portuguese_zpsnkqutbbw.png] Adicione-nos aos seus contatos para receber as últimas notícias e cupons. References 1. http://aspesite.com/ 2. http://aspesite.com/tshirts-tagless-screen-printing/ 3. https://youtu.be/uUYMl_cXz80 4. http://aspesite.com/tshirts-tagless-screen-printing/ 5. http://aspesite.com/build-your-custom-screen-printing-machine/ 6. http://aspesite.com/roi/ 7. https://www.facebook.com/pages/ASPE-Printing-Equipment/298253406928915?fref… 8. https://twitter.com/aspesite 9. https://www.youtube.com/user/asperevolution/ 10. http://aspesite.com/contact-us/ This message was sent by: Peter, peter(a)aspesite.com, ASPE, 42295 Avenida Alvarado Unit 5, Temecula, Ca 92590 Unsubscribe: http://app.icontact.com/icp/mmail-mprofile.pl?r=62295777&l=12026&s=77R3&m=4…

1 0

[rssac-caucus] REMINDER - FOR REVIEW: DRAFT RSSAC Report on Root zone TTLs
by Steve Sheng June 18, 2015

June 18, 2015

Dear RSSAC Caucus, This is a reminder for you to review the draft report on TTLs for the root zone. The review is due by close of business 15 June 2015. In particular in your review, it would be great if you could comment on: 1) whether there are any factual errors with the document. 2) whether you agree with the study methodology and the conclusions that are drawn from these studies 3) whether you agree with the findings of the report 4) whether you agree with the recommendations in this report 5) whether you have any advice on which of the mitigation options articulated in section 6.4.3 should be preferred? Also, are there any interest to have a briefing call on this report? Right now, the most likely time would be Monday 15 June. Thanks, Steve From: Steve Sheng <steve.sheng(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, June 8, 2015 at 1:37 PM To: "rssac-caucus(a)icann.org" <rssac-caucus(a)icann.org> Subject: [rssac-caucus] FOR REVIEW: DRAFT RSSAC Report on Root zone TTLs > Dear RSSAC Caucus, > > On behalf of the caucus work party on Root Zone TTLs, attached please find > for your review the draft RSSAC Report on Root zone TTLs. The work party is > chaired by Duane Wessels, work party members include Joe Abley, Jaap > Akkerhuis, John Bond, Brian Dickson, Shumon Huque, Warren Kumari, Duane > Wessels (work party leader) and Matthew Thomas (invited expert). Staff support > are: Steve Sheng, Barbara Roseman and Kathy Schnitt. > > Root zone TTLs have not changed since 1999. In this report, the RSSAC > caucus studies the extent to which the current root zone TTLs are still > appropriate for today¹s internet environment. The report contains a number of > findings and recommendations through four sets of empirical analyses. The work > party chair invites you to give this report a careful review. > > One thing the chair wish to highlight is that the work party discovered > two potential problems related to the interaction between the SOA Expire value > and the root zone¹s signature validity period. It also identified several > mitigation options, and conducted a preliminary analysis of these options. > However, the work party has yet to reach a conclusion to recommend which > measure to take. It would be good to hear some feedback from the Caucus. Short > of more definitive feedback from the Caucus, the work party will recommend > further consultation in this area. > > The work party chair requests you provide your review by close of business > (anywhere around the world) 15 June 2015, if possible. This will allow the > work party time to discuss and finalize the document in time for RSSAC > consideration in Buenos Aires. > > All the best, > Steve > >

5 7

[rssac-caucus] FYI: Root Stability Study RFP
by Steve Sheng June 10, 2015

June 10, 2015

https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-06-05-en The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (³ICANN²) is seeking one or more providers to conduct a technical study examining the impact of the New gTLD Program (the Program) on the DNS root system. Consistent with its mission supporting the security and stability of the Internet¹s system of unique identifiers, ICANN will undertake an examination of the Program¹s impact on the DNS root system. The selected provider(s) will design and execute one or more studies incorporating the collection and analysis of data from root server operators, historical performance data, data gathered from previous studies, and other tools and measures. ICANN is seeking one or more qualified providers to manage this complex exercise in a timely and efficient manner. A review of the Program for security and stability impact is a previous commitment based on advice from ICANN¹s Governmental Advisory Committee <https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/board-notes-gac-scorecard-cle an-15apr11-en.pdf> and other discussions. Specifically, ICANN committed to review the effects of the New gTLD Program on the operations of the DNS root system, and to postpone delegations in a future round until it is determined that the delegations in the 2012 round have not jeopardized the root system's security or stability. The goals of this study include, at a minimum: * Executing a thorough review of the impact of the Program on the security and stability of the DNS. * Identifying what steps, if any, should be undertaken as a prerequisite to adding more TLDs to the root zone. * Identifying what steps, if any, should be undertaken by the community going forward to assess the state of the root zone on an ongoing basis. For additional information, complete timeline, and instructions for submitting responses please click <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/root-stability-study-rfp-05jun1 5-en.zip> . [ZIP, 983 KB] Proposals should be submitted to RootStabilityStudy-RFP(a)icann.org by 23:59 UTC ON 2 July 2015.

4 3

[rssac-caucus] FOR REVIEW: DRAFT RSSAC Report on Root zone TTLs
by Steve Sheng June 8, 2015

June 8, 2015

Dear RSSAC Caucus, On behalf of the caucus work party on Root Zone TTLs, attached please find for your review the draft RSSAC Report on Root zone TTLs. The work party is chaired by Duane Wessels, work party members include Joe Abley, Jaap Akkerhuis, John Bond, Brian Dickson, Shumon Huque, Warren Kumari, Duane Wessels (work party leader) and Matthew Thomas (invited expert). Staff support are: Steve Sheng, Barbara Roseman and Kathy Schnitt. Root zone TTLs have not changed since 1999. In this report, the RSSAC caucus studies the extent to which the current root zone TTLs are still appropriate for today¹s internet environment. The report contains a number of findings and recommendations through four sets of empirical analyses. The work party chair invites you to give this report a careful review. One thing the chair wish to highlight is that the work party discovered two potential problems related to the interaction between the SOA Expire value and the root zone¹s signature validity period. It also identified several mitigation options, and conducted a preliminary analysis of these options. However, the work party has yet to reach a conclusion to recommend which measure to take. It would be good to hear some feedback from the Caucus. Short of more definitive feedback from the Caucus, the work party will recommend further consultation in this area. The work party chair requests you provide your review by close of business (anywhere around the world) 15 June 2015, if possible. This will allow the work party time to discuss and finalize the document in time for RSSAC consideration in Buenos Aires. All the best, Steve

2 3

[rssac-caucus] possible new work item
by Joe Abley June 8, 2015

June 8, 2015

Hi all, I have a suggestion for a new work item for RSSAC. If RSSAC thinks this work would be of value, and there are people willing to work on it, I'd be happy to (co-) lead a work party. A rough sketch of a charter follows. Comments would be most welcome! Thanks, Joe Back in the dim mists of time, individual root servers had names chosen by the organisation that operated them. Some/all of these names are recorded for posterity in the canonical root hints file, e.g. A was originally NS.INTERNIC.NET, B was originally NS1.ISI.EDU, F was originally NS.ISC.ORG, etc. ftp://rs.internic.net/domain/named.cache The naming scheme was subsequently changed to <letter>.ROOT-SERVERS.NET, with the intent that the response to the priming query (using label compression for the ROOT-SERVERS.NET domain) would be smaller, and would allow an additional four root servers to be specified without causing the priming response to grow beyond the specified non-EDNS(0) message size limit using UDP transport. I have seen this cleverness attributed to Bill Manning in the past. ROOT-SERVERS.NET was delegated from the NET zone to all root servers. The domain exists in the NET registry, defended by a platoon of registry locks, and the zone itself is (if I recall correctly) maintained and distributed by Verisign to root server operators as part of the root zone maintainer function, with changes following a similar process to that used for the root zone, including interactions between the three root zone partners. In the opinions of some (but not all) people, the existence of the ROOT-SERVERS.NET zone is a historical mistake, and it would have been better to name the root servers in a way that avoided the necessity for a separate zone, e.g. bare single-label names (A, B, C, ...) or multi-label names with no delegation (A.ROOT-SERVERS, B.ROOT-SERVERS) provisioned directly in the root zone. The presence of a label like ROOT-SERVERS might in effect constitute a reserved TLD label, with corresponding impact on ICANN policy for root zone management, the technical direction and remit of the IETF/IAB, and the intersection of the two. So, there are dragons^Wpolitical considerations, although I think RSSAC should constrain itself to technical commentary and leave any dragon baiting to others. SAC53 has a thing or two to say about "dotless domains" like A, B, C, etc which could no doubt provide a useful citation. A client that sends a priming query with EDNS0.DO=1 (which, I gather, is how most priming queries are observed to arrive today) does not currently receive a response with signatures in the additional section of the response, because the ROOT-SERVERS.NET zone is not signed. The lack of signatures in the ROOT-SERVERS.NET zone is either a feature or a bug, depending on your perspective; if it was to be signed, the question of key management would arise. If signatures were present, there might be some operational impact caused by the increased size of the priming response. Rather than the naming scheme for root servers remaining a collection of partially-remembered anecdotes plus occasional yet regular memes on mailing lists about what a mistake the current naming scheme was, I think it would be good if RSSAC could produce a document that: 1. Provides a citeable history on how root nameservers were originally named and how they are named today, recording the reasons for the change; 2. Considers the risks and benefits of a new naming scheme that avoids the zone cut, including impact on root zone partners' processes, on operational issues like priming response sizes and backed-in assumptions elsewhere about root server names and on security issues relating to DNSSEC validation; 3. Considers the risks associated with any transition from the current naming scheme to a different one; 4. Makes recommendations as to whether a change from the current scheme should be made and, if the recommendation is to make a change, makes further recommendations that might frame the way a transition is planned and managed operationally. A recommendation that there be no change is an equally reasonable outcome; either way the document should include high-quality justification and reasoning. All recommendations made would be actionable by ICANN (rather than recommendations actionable by the other two partners or anybody else with skin in the game), since that is the scope of our role.

17 18

[rssac-caucus] Fwd: The real story of how the Internet became so vulnerable | The Washington Post
by Barbara Roseman June 3, 2015

June 3, 2015

Many of you already know this history, but from the Washington Post, this is a good overview of how the Internet in the US was developed without security as a primary concern. Very nice overview of the beginnings of things. Looks as if it may be part of a series and we¹ll forward the rest as it becomes available. -Barb Begin forwarded message: > From: David Olive <david.olive(a)icann.org> > Date: May 31, 2015 at 5:40:05 PM GMT+3 > To: David Olive <david.olive(a)icann.org> > Subject: The real story of how the Internet became so vulnerable | The > Washington Post > > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/business/2015/05/30/net-of-insecurity-part… > ?wprss=rss_MobileTopStories > > > David A. Olive > Sent from my iPad

5 4