Internet-Draft | incremental-deleg | January 2025 |
Homburg, et al. | Expires 12 July 2025 | [Page] |
This document proposes a mechanism for extensible delegations in the DNS.
The mechanism realizes delegations with resource record sets placed below a _deleg
label in the apex of the delegating zone.
This authoritative delegation point can be aliased to other names using CNAME and DNAME.
This document proposes a new DNS resource record type, DELEG, which is based on the SVCB and inherits extensibility from it.¶
Support in recursive resolvers suffices for the mechanism to be fully functional. The number of subsequent interactions between the recursive resolver and the authoritative name servers is comparable with those for DNS Query Name Minimisation. Additionally, but not required, support in the authoritative name servers enables optimized behavior with reduced (simultaneous) queries. None, mixed or full deployment of the mechanism on authoritative name servers are all fully functional, allowing for the mechanism to be incrementally deployed.¶
This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.¶
Status information for this document may be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-homburg-deleg-incremental-deleg/.¶
Discussion of this document takes place on the deleg Working Group mailing list (mailto:dd@ietf.org), which is archived at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dd/. Subscribe at https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dd/.¶
Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at https://github.com/NLnetLabs/incremental-deleg.¶
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.¶
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.¶
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."¶
This Internet-Draft will expire on 12 July 2025.¶
Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.¶
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.¶
This document describes a delegation mechanism for the Domain Name System (DNS) [STD13] that addresses several matters that, at the time of writing, are suboptimally supported or not supported at all. These matters are elaborated upon in sections 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3. In addition, the mechanism described in this document aspires to be maximally deployable, which is elaborated upon in Section 1.4.¶
A new DELEG resource record (RR) type is introduced in this document, which is based on and inherits the wire and presentation format from SVCB [RFC9460]. All Service Binding Mappings, as well as the capability signalling, that are specified in [RFC9461] are also applicable to DELEG, with the exception of the limitations on AliasMode records in Section 6 of [RFC9460]. Capability signalling of DNS over Transport Layer Protocol [RFC7858] (DoT), DNS Queries over HTTPS [RFC8484] and DNS over Dedicated QUIC Connections [RFC9250], on default or alternative ports, can all be used as specified in [RFC9461]. The DELEG RR type inherits its extensibility from the SVCB RR type, which is designed to be extensible to support future uses (such as keys for encrypting the TLS ClientHello [I-D.ietf-tls-esni].)¶
Delegation information is stored at an authoritative location in the zone with this mechanism.
Legacy methods to redirect this information to another location, possible under the control of another operator, such as (CNAME Section 3.6.2 of [RFC1034]) and DNAME [RFC6672] remain functional.
One could even outsource all delegation operational practice to another party with an DNAME on the _deleg
label on the apex of the delegating zone.¶
Additional to the legacy methods, a delegation may be outsourced to a third parties by having RRs in AliasMode. Unlike SVCB, DELEG allows for more than a single DELEG RR in AliasMode in a DELEG RRset, enabling outsourcing a delegation to multiple different operators.¶
With legacy delegations, the NS RRset at the parent side of a delegation as well as glue records for the names in the NS RRset are not authoritative and not DNSSEC signed. An adversary that is able to spoof a referral response, can alter this information and redirect all traffic for the delegation to a rogue name server undetected. The adversary can then perceive all queries for the redirected zone (Privacy concern) and alter all unsigned parts of responses (such as further referrals, which is a Security concern).¶
DNSSEC protection of delegation information prevents that, and is the only countermeasure that also works against on-path attackers. At the time of writing, the only way to DNSSEC validate and verify delegations at all levels in the DNS hierarchy is to revalidate delegations [I-D.ietf-dnsop-ns-revalidation], which is done after the fact and has other security concerns (Section 7 of [I-D.ietf-dnsop-ns-revalidation]).¶
Direct delegation information (provided by DELEG RRs in ServiceMode) includes the hostnames of the authoritative name servers for the delegation as well as IP addresses for those hostnames. Since the information is stored authoritatively in the delegating zone, it will be DNSSEC signed if the zone is signed. When the delegation is outsourced, then it's protected when the zones providing the aliasing resource records and the zones serving the targets of the aliases are all DNSSEC signed.¶
Delegation information is stored authoritatively within the delegation zone. No semantic changes as to what zones are authoritative for what data are needed. As a consequence, existing DNS software, such as authoritative name servers and DNSSEC signing software, can remain unmodified. Unmodified authoritative name server software will serve the delegation information when queried for. Unmodified signers will sign the delegation information in the delegating zone. Only the recursive resolver needs modification to follow referrals as provided by the delegation information.¶
Such a resolver would explicitly query for the delegations administered as specified in Section 3. The number of round trips from the recursive resolver to the authoritative name server is comparable to what is needed for DNS Query Name Minimisation [RFC9156]. Additional implementation in the authoritative name server optimizes resolution and reduces the number of simultaneous in parallel queries to that what would be needed for legacy delegations. None, mixed or full deployment of the mechanism on authoritative name servers are all fully functional, allowing for the mechanism to be incrementally deployed on the authoritative name servers.¶
Implementation in the recursive may be less demanding with respect to (among other things) DNSSEC validation because there is no need to make additional exceptions as to what is authoritative at the parent side of a delegation.¶
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.¶
This document follows terminology as defined in [RFC9499].¶
Throughout this document we will also use terminology with the meaning as defined below:¶
The delegation mechanism as specified in this document.¶
A delegation as specified in this document¶
The way delegations are done in the DNS traditionally as defined in [STD13].¶
The zone in which the delegation is administered. Sometimes also called the "parent zone" of a delegation.¶
The zone that is delegated to from the delegating zone.¶
The name which realizes the delegation. In legacy delegations, this name is the same as the name of the subzone to which the delegation refers. Delegations described in this document are provided with a different name than the zone that is delegated to.¶
The location in the delegating zone where the RRs are provided that make up the delegation. In legacy delegations, this is the parent side of the zone cut and has the same name as the subzone. With incremental deleg, this is the location given by the delegating name.¶
The query on which resolution a recursive resolver is working.¶
The zone for which the authoritative servers, that a resolver contacts while iterating, are authoritative.¶
The DELEG RR type is a variant of SVCB [RFC9460] for use with resolvers to perform iterative resolution (Section 5.3.3 of [RFC1034]). The DELEG type requires registration in the "Resource Record (RR) TYPEs" registry under the "Domain Name System (DNS) Parameters" registry group (see DELEG RR type (Section 11.1)). The protocol-specific mapping specification for iterative resolutions are the same as those for "DNS Servers" [RFC9461].¶
Section 2.4.2 of [RFC9460] states that SVCB RRsets SHOULD only have a single RR in AliasMode, and that if multiple AliasMode RRs are present, clients or recursive resolvers SHOULD pick one at random. Different from SVCB (Section 2.4.2 of [RFC9460]), DELEG allows for multiple AliasMode RRs to be present in a single DELEG RRset. Note however that the target of a DELEG RR in AliasMode is an SVCB RRset for the "dns" service type adhering fully to the Service Binding Mapping for DNS Servers as specified in [RFC9461].¶
Section 2.4.1 of [RFC9460] states that within an SVCB RRset, all RRs SHOULD have the same mode, and that if an RRset contains a record in AliasMode, the recipient MUST ignore any ServiceMode records in the set. Different from SVCB, mixed ServiceMode and AliasMode RRs are allowed in a DELEG RRset.¶
At the delegation point (for example customer._deleg.example.
), the host names of the authoritative name servers for the subzone, are given in the TargetName RDATA field of DELEG records in ServiceMode.
Port Prefix Naming Section 3 of [RFC9461] is not used at the delegation point, but MUST be used when resolving the aliased to name servers with DELEG RRs in AliasMode.¶
An extensible delegation is realized with a DELEG Resource Record set (RRset) [RFC9460] below a specially for the purpose reserved label with the name _deleg
at the apex of the delegating zone.
The _deleg
label scopes the interpretation of the DELEG records and requires registration in the "Underscored and Globally Scoped DNS Node Names" registry (see _deleg Node Name (Section 11.2)).
The full scoping of delegations includes the labels that are below the _deleg
label and those, together with the name of the delegating domain, make up the name of the subzone to which the delegation refers.
For example, if the delegating zone is example.
, then a delegation to subzone customer.example.
is realized by a DELEG RRset at the name customer._deleg.example.
in the parent zone.
A fully scoped delegating name (such as customer._deleg.example.
) is referred to further in this document as the "delegation point".¶
Note that if the delegation is outsourcing to a single operator represented in a single DELEG RR, it is RECOMMENDED to refer to the name of the operator's DELEG RRset with a CNAME on the delegation point instead of a DELEG RR in AliasMode Section 10.2 of [RFC9460].¶
Instead of using CNAME, the outsourcing could also been accomplished with a DELEG RRset with a single DELEG RR in AliasMode.
The configuration below is operationally equivalent to the CNAME configuration above.
It is RECOMMENDED to use a CNAME over a DELEG RRset with a single DELEG RR in AliasMode (Section 10.2 of [RFC9460]).
Note that a DELEG RRset refers with TargetName to an DNS service, which will be looked up using Port Prefix Naming Section 3 of [RFC9461], but that CNAME refers to the domain name of the target DELEG RRset (or CNAME) which may have an _dns
prefix.¶
The operator DELEG RRset could for example be:¶
customer5.example.
is delegated to in an extensible way and customer6.example.
is delegated only in a legacy way.
customer7.example.
's delegation is outsourced to customer5's delegation.¶
The delegation signals that the authoritative name server supports DoH.
customer5.example.
, customer6.example.
and example.
are all DNSSEC signed.
The DNSSEC authentication chain links from example.
to customer5.example.
in the for DNSSEC conventional way with the signed customer5.example. DS
RRset in the example.
zone.
Also, customer6.example.
is linked to from example.
with the signed customer6.example. DS
RRset in the example.
zone.¶
Note that both customer5.example.
and customer6.example.
have legacy delegations in the zone as well.
It is important to have those legacy delegations to maintain support for legacy resolvers, that do not support incremental deleg.
DNSSEC signers SHOULD construct the NS RRset and glue for the legacy delegation from the DELEG RRset.¶
Support in recursive resolvers suffices for the mechanism to be fully functional. Section 4.1 specifies the basic algorithm for resolving incremental delegations. In Section 4.2, an optimization is presented that will reduce the number of (parallel) queries especially for when authoritative name server support is still lacking and there are still many zones that do not contain incremental delegations.¶
If the triggering query name is the same as the name of the target zone apex, then no further delegation will occur, and resolution will complete. No special behavior or processing is needed.¶
Otherwise, the triggering query is below the target zone apex and a delegation may exist in the target zone. In this case two parallel queries MUST be sent. One for the triggering query in the way that is conventional with legacy delegations (which could be just the triggering query or a minimised query [RFC9156]), and one incremental deleg query with query type DELEG.¶
The incremental deleg query name is constructed by concatenating the first label below the part that the triggering query name has in common with the target zone, a _deleg
label and the name of the target zone.
For example if the triggering query is www.customer.example.
and the target zone example.
, then the incremental deleg query name is customer._deleg.example.
For another example, if the triggering query is www.faculty.university.example.
and the target zone example.
then the incremental deleg name is university._deleg.example.
¶
Normal DNAME, CNAME and DELEG in AliasMode processing should happen as before, though note that when following a DELEG RR in AliasMode the target RR type is SVCB (see Section 2). The eventual incremental deleg query response, after following all redirections caused by DNAME, CNAME and AliasMode DELEG RRs, has three possible outcomes:¶
A DELEG RRset in ServiceMode is returned in the response's answer section containing the delegation for the subzone.¶
The DELEG RRs in the RRset MUST be used to follow the referral. The TargetName data field in the DELEG RRs in the RRset MUST be used as the names for the name servers to contact for the subzone, and the ipv4hint and ipv6hint parameters MUST be used as the IP addresses for the TargetName in the same DELEG RR.¶
The NS RRset and glue, in the response of the legacy query that was sent in parallel to the incremental deleg query, MUST NOT be used, but the signed DS record (or NSEC(3) records indicating that there was no DS) MUST be used in linking the DNSSEC authentication chain as which would conventionally be done with DNSSEC as well.¶
The incremental deleg query name does not exist (NXDOMAIN).¶
There is no incremental delegation for the subzone, and the referral response for the legacy delegation MUST be processed as would be done with legacy DNS and DNSSEC processing.¶
The incremental deleg query name does exist, but resulted in a NOERROR no answer response (also known as a NODATA response).¶
If the legacy query, did result in a referral for the same number of labels as the subdomain that the incremental deleg query was for, then there was no incremental delegation for the subzone, and the referral response for the legacy delegation MUST be processed as would be done with legacy DNS and DNSSEC processing.¶
Otherwise, the subzone may be more than one label below the delegating zone.¶
If the response to the legacy query resulted in a referral, then a new incremental deleg query MUST be spawned, matching the zone cut of the legacy referral response.
For example if the triggering query is www.university.ac.example.
and the target zone example.
, and the legacy response contained an NS RRset for university.ac.example.
, then the incremental deleg query name is university.ac._deleg.example.
The response to the new incremental deleg query MUST be processed as described above, as if it was the initial incremental deleg query.¶
If the legacy query was sent minimised and needs a followup query, then parallel to that followup query a new incremental deleg query will be sent, adding a single label to the previous incremental deleg query name.
For example if the triggering query is www.university.ac.example.
and the target zone is example.
and the minimised legacy query name is ac.example.
(which also resulted in a NOERROR no answer response), then the incremental deleg query to be sent along in parallel with the followup legacy query will become university.ac.example.
Processing of the responses of those two new queries will be done as described above.¶
_deleg
label presence
Absence of the _deleg
label in a zone is a clear signal that the zone does not contain any incremental deleg delegations.
Recursive resolvers SHOULD NOT send any additional incremental deleg queries for zones for which it is known that it does not contain the _deleg
label at the apex.
The state regarding the presence of the _deleg
label within a resolver can be "unknown", "known not to be present", or "known to be present".¶
The state regarding the presence of the _deleg
label can be deduced from the response of the incremental deleg query, if the target zone is signed with DNSSEC.
If the target zone is unsigned, the procedure as described in the remainder of this section SHOULD be followed.¶
When the presence of a _deleg
label is "unknown", a _deleg
presence test query SHOULD be sent in parallel to the next query for the unsigned target zone (though not when the target name server is known to support incremental deleg, which will be discussed in Section 5.1).
The query name for the test query is the _deleg
label prepended to the apex of zone for which to test presence, with query type A.¶
The testing query can have three possible outcomes:¶
The _deleg
label does not exist within the zone, and an NXDOMAIN response is returned.¶
The non-existence of the _deleg
label MUST be cached for the duration indicated by the "minimum" RDATA field of the SOA resource record in the authority section, adjusted to the boundaries for TTL values that the resolver has (Section 4 of [RFC8767]).
For the period the non-existence of the _deleg
label is cached, the label is "known not to be present" and the resolver SHOULD NOT send any (additional) incremental deleg queries.¶
The _deleg
label does exist within the zone but contains no data.
A NOERROR response is returned with no RRs in the answer section.¶
The existence of the _deleg
name MUST be cached for the duration indicated by the "minimum" RDATA field of the SOA resource record in the authority section, adjusted to the resolver's TTL boundaries.
For the period the existence of the empty non-terminal at the _deleg
label is cached, the label is "known to be present" and the resolver MUST send additional incremental deleg queries as described in TODO.¶
The _deleg
label does exist within the zone and contains data.
A NOERROR response is return with an A RRset in the answer section.¶
The resolver MUST record that the _deleg
label is known to be present for a duration indicated by A RRset's TTL value, adjusted to the resolver's TTL boundaries, for example by caching the RRset.
For the period any RRset at the _deleg
label is cached, the label is "known to be present" and the resolver MUST send additional incremental deleg queries as described in TODO.¶
Support for authoritative name servers enables optimized query behavior by resolvers with reduced (simultaneous) queries. Section 5.1 specifies how incremental deleg supporting authoritative name servers return referral responses for delegations. In Section 5.2 we specify how resolvers can benefit from those authoritative servers.¶
Incremental deleg supporting authoritative name servers will include the incremental delegation information (or the NSEC(3) records showing the non-existence) in the authority section of referral responses. If it is known that an authoritative name server supports incremental deleg, then no direct queries for the incremental delegation need to be send in parallel to the legacy delegation query. A resolver SHOULD register that an authoritative name server supports incremental deleg when the authority section, of the returned referral responses from that authoritative name server, contains incremental delegegation information.¶
When the authority section of a referral response contains a DELEG RRset or a CNAME on the incremental delegation name, or valid NSEC(3) RRs showing the non-existence of such DELEG or CNAME RRset, then the resolver SHOULD register that the contacted authoritative name server supports incremental deleg for the duration indicated by the TTL for that DELEG, CNAME or NSEC(3) RRset, adjusted to the resolver's TTL boundaries, but only if it is longer than any already registered duration. Subsequent queries SHOULD NOT include incremental deleg queries, as described in Section 4.1, to be send in parallel for the duration support for incremental deleg is registered for the authoritative name server.¶
For example, in Figure 7, the DELEG RRset at the incremental delegation point has TTL 3600. The resolver should register that the contacted authoritative name server supports incremental deleg for (at least) 3600 seconds (one hour). All subsequent queries to that authoritative name server SHOULD NOT include incremental deleg queries to be send in parallel.¶
If the authority section contains more than one RRset making up the incremental delegation, then the RRset with the longest TTL MUST be taken to determine the duration for which incremental deleg support is registered.¶
For example, in Figure 9, both a CNAME and a DELEG RRset for the incremental delegation are included in the authority section. The longest TTL must be taken for incremental support registration, though because the TTL of both RRsets is 3600, it does not matter in this case.¶
With DNSSEC signed zones, support is apparent with all referral responses, with unsigned zones only from referral responses for which a incremental delegation exists.¶
If the resolver knows that the authoritative name server supports incremental deleg, and a DNSSEC signed zone is being served, then all referrals MUST contain either an incremental delegation, or NSEC(3) records showing that the delegation does not exist. If a referral is returned that does not contain an incremental delegation nor an indication that it does not exist, then the resolver MUST send an additional incremental deleg query to find the incremental delegation (or denial of its existence).¶
A DELEG RRset on an incremental delegation point, with a DELEG RR in AliasMode, aliasing to the root zone, MUST be interpreted to mean that the legacy delegation information MUST be used to follow the referral. All service parameters for such AliasMode (aliasing to the root) DELEG RRs on the incremental delegation point, MUST be ignored.¶
For example, such a DELEG RRset registered on the wildcard below the _deleg
label on the apex of a zone, can signal that legacy DNS referrals MUST be used for both signed and unsigned zones:¶
Resolvers SHOULD register that an authoritative name server supports incremental deleg, if such a DELEG RRset is returned in the authority section of referral responses, for the duration of the TTL if the DELEG RRset, adjusted to the resolver's TTL boundaries, but only if it is longer than any already registered duration.
Note that this will also be included in referral responses for unsigned zones, which would otherwise not have signalling of incremental deleg support by the authoritative name server.
Also, signed zones need fewer RRs to indicate that no incremental delegation exists.
The wildcard expansion already shows the closest encloser (i.e. _deleg.<apex>
), so only one additional NSEC(3) is needed to show non-existence of the queried for name below the closest encloser.¶
This method of signalling that the legacy delegation MUST be used, is RECOMMENDED.¶
Some zones, such as the root zone, are targeted directly from hints files.
Information about which authoritative name servers and with capabilities, MAY be provided in a DELEG RRset directly at the _deleg
label under the apex of the zone.
Priming queries from a incremental deleg supporting resolver, MUST send an _deleg.<apex> DELEG
query in parallel to the legacy <apex> NS
query and process the content as if it was found through an incremental referral response.¶
Table Table 1 provides an overview of when extra queries, in parallel to the legacy query, are sent.¶
apex | support | _deleg | <sub>._deleg.<apex> DELEG | _deleg.<apex> A | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Yes | * | * | |||
2 | No | * | No | |||
3 | No | Yes | * | |||
4 | No | Unknown | Yes | X | ||
5 | No | Unknown | Unknown | X | only for unsigned zones |
The three headers on the left side of the table mean the following:¶
Whether the query is for the apex of the target zone. "Yes" means an apex query, "No" means a query below the apex which may be delegated¶
Whether or not the target authoritative server supports incremental deleg. "Yes" means it supports it and "Unknown" means support is not detected. "*" means it does not matter¶
_deleg
:Whether or not the _deleg
label is present in the target zone (and thus incremental delegations)¶
On the right side of the table are the extra queries, to be sent in parallel with the legacy query.
The _deleg
presence test query (most right column) only needs to be sent to unsigned target zones, because its non-existence will be show in the NSEC(3) records showing the non-existence of the incremental delegation (second from right column).¶
If the query name is the same as the apex of the target zone, no extra queries need to be sent (Row 1).
If the _deleg
label is known not to exist in the target zone (Row 2) or if the target name server is known to support incremental deleg (Row 3), no extra queries need to be sent.
Only if it is unknown that the target name server supports incremental deleg, and the _deleg
label is known to exist in the target zone (Row 4) or it its not known whether or not the _deleg
label exists (Row 5), and extra incremental deleg query is sent in parallel to the legacy query.
If the target zone is unsigned, presence of the _deleg
label needs to be tested explicitly (Row 5).¶
[I-D.dnsop-deleg] | [this document] |
---|---|
Requires implementation in both authoritative name server as well as in the resolver | Only resolver implementation required. But optimized with updated authoritative software. |
DNSKEY flag needed to signal DELEG support with all authoritative name servers that serve the parent (delegating) domain. Special requirements for the child domain. | No DNSKEY flag needed. Separation of concerns. |
Authoritative name servers need to be updated all at once | Authoritative name servers may be updated gradually for optimization |
New semantics about what is authoritative (BOGUS with current DNSSEC validators) | Works with current DNS and DNSSEC semantics. Easier to implement. |
No extra queries | An extra query, in parallel to the legacy query, per authoritative server when incremental deleg support is not yet detected, and per unsigned zone to determine presence of the _deleg label |
Note to the RFC Editor: please remove this entire section before publication.¶
Jesse van Zutphen has built a proof of concept implementation supporting delegations as specified in this document for the Unbound recursive resolver as part of his master thesis for the Security and Network Engineering master program of the University of Amsterdam. [JZUTPHEN] The source code of his implementation is available on github [DELEG4UNBOUND]¶
TODO Security¶
IANA is requested to update the "Resource Record (RR) TYPEs" registry under the "Domain Name System (DNS) Parameters" registry group as follows:¶
TYPE | Value | Meaning | Reference |
---|---|---|---|
DELEG | TBD | Delegation | [this document] |
Per [RFC8552], IANA is requested to add the following entry to the DNS "Underscored and Globally Scoped DNS Node Names" registry:¶
RR Type | _NODE NAME | Reference |
---|---|---|
DELEG | _deleg | [this document] |
The idea to utilize SVCB based RRs to signal capabilities was first proposed by Tim April in [I-D.tapril-ns2].¶
The idea to utilize SVCB for extensible delegations (and also the idea described in this document) emerged from the DNS Hackathon at the IETF 118. The following participants contributed to this brainstorm session: Vandan Adhvaryu, Roy Arends, David Blacka, Manu Bretelle, Vladimír Čunát, Klaus Darilion, Peter van Dijk, Christian Elmerot, Bob Halley, Shumon Huque, Shane Kerr, David C Lawrence, Edward Lewis, George Michaelson, Erik Nygren, Libor Peltan, Ben Schwartz, Petr Špaček, Jan Včelák and Ralf Weber¶