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

Douglas Otis <> Sat, 20 February 2016 00:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6E521ACE2C for <>; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 16:21:53 -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 z7zzxMLMTX76 for <>; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 16:21:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB99C1B2D51 for <>; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 16:21:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id xk3so124884652obc.2 for <>; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 16:21:51 -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=nLdcz1S9Nd+w1WBvcYPQkes8ZAiPpBZU3DizOIJNNYs=; b=1DKvZ5/vscjV0kFquS9SF/Zkel0tPGiXLAlqIWJXvqA72a/MJrQA/S6A+fNWXWQ464 x7FCDaorKIcPeFhBB7qAEklycnYnV6A4VtMiRXuFEXsKT0JvhwD/joXZaioj/dHALW40 pSCX/ssMXPTWEJ72puZFCgtlx5RRx/jQ95QAS5qD6pi98rOn9t1jPH5i71c3+zx8KPct c6ezc69Yhvl5s3BYLabqjg7ymCbNzKcco97amDMME1uncr/LWMLp0YejsyaiLXltdpNV yf4Dr3LzyM+PMroNtUu85qoGPMXeCq1qwLkadxiGVjazZPCaB9P5wFnVkGIKP+6UpnL9 Y+Wg==
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=nLdcz1S9Nd+w1WBvcYPQkes8ZAiPpBZU3DizOIJNNYs=; b=EgxZ0OyzsaEenrJyf1ED0GGgwdyTvfemUzI9Lvcoi8sNwyJR4vLJfiFiFMguz9xxeh 3JrDX3Q6+iEtNf0L/8FlYzvvTzwuQIuY+efI/bjUl27iMKNAag3UmRPcPI58XZN414/U wJZf6o4Igol0MUBHP9YXTi1o9pDq0bkflmqVsG/nwFmwTWmoH/s3aVZHlb4tJmpzD5n0 8asJqLPCwtQJFESWvlH9un8ufiF3cJhk/OmoCzQo1UvXcc2KhStJM7s0m2OZZ1W4wMHx SKjL0hTshmUg7g+S458LC2VvXlVhaNncy/6Dukp7LpOgqS3fb/FdFIxiFo/WajwGw+5T hGCg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOT9mC5utzU32o3RTo6soNTPhuZcNItLLuZdecuH8raR0ckbw/2iW7erPEV6UkJeag==
X-Received: by with SMTP id ed9mr13794851oeb.17.1455927710956; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 16:21:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from US-DOUGO-MAC.local ([2601:647:4280:238b:acd2:2449:3d16:7bff]) by with ESMTPSA id k5sm8724925oed.1.2016. for <> (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 19 Feb 2016 16:21:50 -0800 (PST)
References: <> <>
From: Douglas Otis <>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 16:24:35 -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: Sat, 20 Feb 2016 00:21:53 -0000

On 2/13/16 12:31 PM, Edward Lewis wrote:
> Replying to this, having at least skimmed, if not read
> the followups...
> On 2/3/16, 13:56, "Arcing on behalf of Ted Hardie" 
> < on behalf of>
> wrote:
>> My first question to this group is:  do folks agree
>> with this characterization?  If not, what's wrong?
> I agree fully, FWIW.
>> If they do agree with the characterization of the
>> problem, does this sketch of solution spaces look
>> right?
> Yep.
>> And, most importantly, which level of the problem do we
>> think we can solve:  the multiple namespaces one or the
>> unitary namespace/multiple resolution contexts one?
> One solution is to define a single namespace,
> complimentary to as much de-jure use that now exists.
> Defining what protocols "support" the namespace can be
> left to the protocol's discretion.  What I mean is, I 
> tried for a while to define the scope of protocols that I
> wanted to have Domain Names apply to, but calling the set
> something like "IETF protocols" turned out to be
> inaccurate.  So I began to think of - just define a name 
> space and see what protocols "come" to it.
> There's a lot to discuss.  I think markers approach is
> currently the most appealing, but, you never can tell at
> this stage.

Dear Edward,

This is likely my last comment.

Developing a grand scheme to identify how future namespace
resolution is to be handled should be balanced against the
specific solution of a non-global .home TLD offering a
concise and safe method made available early in the homenet
process as a means to avoid delay and security risks
incumbent with any future grand multipurpose scheme.

Homenet offers homes multi-router environments based on IPv6
with services found using DNS-SD. In nearly every possible
deployment of typical home networks generally lacking key
security components, publishing DNS-SD within global DNS
namespace will expose a tremendous level of device
vulnerabilities likely to include those discovered over the
last few years or more.

Don't insist adoption of draft-cheshire-homenet-dot-home-02
must follow some grander scheme that might make use of an
alternate root or URL modification. Any such approach
doubtlessly precludes essential compatibilities needing
consideration for Homenet deployment.

Douglas Otis