Re: [Arcing] A bit more on the problem statement

Douglas Otis <> Thu, 04 February 2016 23:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5E491B338D for <>; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 15:00:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3EL5dJDe_UiI for <>; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 15:00:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA6901B338B for <>; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 15:00:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id o185so57292309pfb.1 for <>; Thu, 04 Feb 2016 15:00:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=+eN/A0xxr3WPfYEZjoz8gGPTIllpB0+uuvLk8mYy1zQ=; b=hQs8pw/qtzFXXWd1vXEY9djp4BlrPmP8zZygoKWYxjN71gvzOi4ibfS/lfRepU3Pv3 cbSmWH7F6VIu7aIuKeuNLIZm5oahbE/m6eQzN0k8qdW7UPrtu7GdY9ZHyqg4N8Vhb0f7 2/juVgur4j7nsM+7P1irnDIQKPGDvtFhi4heLU4L9iPPz/2VWWCjkY5uM/SmGC7A3ZE0 e8qUoxNvV8OLNKb1HZD85vJ2zz4cncT+a3skkmJIF1ti9SAn5b7U+LZfYp7XRtwWB4wD 7UH7IIBPhkOLQmpHEohOfwk2/brM7HMbVkj7oJX1z6F+SL0NJ6xNbJfG6uV8S/Vg0ij2 hfIA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=+eN/A0xxr3WPfYEZjoz8gGPTIllpB0+uuvLk8mYy1zQ=; b=E3LHNfoQ9E7/LPrgxU4ku2/Reh4MkuhwYAdzcPqeMp88G94wXS/JA99+aCDhQKfJzf 2uV4UO6SYUqSB06uHyMO7zgCs8KU+FFRdz9WO8nvYm9y44X0V4dmoNPTL7OWn+fhetGq WXz1vDYDxGtKDEJKHyufalgDsPh7Blig/MWa2kOZYnBKfHg0tVhxoGdNLrldIUZLBUrP p6hUYRDq8EkJqlj/3+XxPpA6YBWwxC5bh/zX13VrZuD+5ZhqNTF3F55IM7MrcrX+kG9n ucPLhODcL8yin+5A7rM1Tyrb5rPJjR+49G7QxnwpifOkN7ekhXJmE8MGhADb3s+OjfjH J+7A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOQ3OWiFP+yZi0FWMBd9LqQIm9dT6qQzzidYOa3vEsfPITQ8HxpOujL5QGrQwvOI4A==
X-Received: by with SMTP id o11mr15048183pfi.123.1454626805629; Thu, 04 Feb 2016 15:00:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from US-DOUGO-MAC.local ( []) by with ESMTPSA id h89sm15157735pfj.52.2016. for <> (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 04 Feb 2016 15:00:04 -0800 (PST)
References: <> <> <>
From: Douglas Otis <>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2016 15:00:44 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Arcing] A bit more on the problem statement
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: This list will discuss different architectural approaches to signalling alternative resolution contexts for Internet names <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2016 23:00:08 -0000

On 2/4/16 11:44 AM, Ted Hardie wrote:
> If we get broad agreement to use a particular signal, 
> like .alt, then folks minting new namespaces in .alt can 
> avoid collision with a simple FCFS registry.  If everyone
> plays nice, there is no collision and you have no big
> issues.  But we have no way of making that so, and we
> have seen in the pseudo-TLD case that people mint these,
> use them, and then require updates of others to deal with
> the collisions.  Depending on the usage of .alt or a
> similar signal, that could remain a concern (at least
> version of the proposal had no registry at all, just the
> reserved top label).

Dear Ted,

Why assume .home should be converted to .home.alt? Is this
to ensure .alt gains inertia with its namespace containing
definitions similar to those found with

Open-ended FCFS registration will encourage an explosion of
variant namespaces having any number of resolution methods
and context. It seems safer to keep .home as defined by
draft-cheshire-homenet-dot-home-02, and let .alt develop
independently. In the goodness of time resource assessments
and related risks assessments can then be made.

Small home CPE devices offer limited storage and need
simplistic access methods to limit vulnerabilities and
coding complexity. As such, offering a highly extensible
resolution structure as a first step seems ill considered.
Otherwise, assessing security risks will provide resulting
extensibility APIs likely to make Java and Flash defense
seem trivial in comparison and will do nothing to limit the
leakage of .home.

Douglas Otis