Re: [dns-privacy] [dhcwg] WGLC started -- draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options-12

Ted Lemon <> Wed, 05 May 2021 16:42 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14B583A1857 for <>; Wed, 5 May 2021 09:42:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DALtCAjzgwUu for <>; Wed, 5 May 2021 09:42:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::831]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 710563A1852 for <>; Wed, 5 May 2021 09:42:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id a18so1657637qtj.10 for <>; Wed, 05 May 2021 09:42:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=dSg5UAoF3MpIhK06Kta0IYI3Gh1Osi3egYMT8E1bxVw=; b=rcyykrH3k10M1k2NFEsAI92LpYHjlUMDWhHuQ5a0rtFJLClnTckkxhLALBOZnEiqkk KIWlqtVweex1H4p7U3wfEr/uj5Ra26IJlPifCMS37lKMwCQnu1f9wRVcLcSRUmpSkn2+ BMAYcwTSHHZJQYV8CziwG5PyyDJX4Eu5I8jkUd5Xt1Q+LriDUWpbAgTr9aaEVQOCuMvk GQS6EMGV3WSxslHu7dW4KsdtMyGALLraC5VdlJyRg+jBKkdjONL80+nqS2LSWkNZn6Li 5oKyL2BZMQdiEn33/tr268U83grTMTGBjppIfhYVU4rgCC0H+UuersdrVAFkA5+2ueH+ pRCQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=dSg5UAoF3MpIhK06Kta0IYI3Gh1Osi3egYMT8E1bxVw=; b=AwyORqhLlSUhYFkRoYG9Tz4Nll3XclFUipAOkWkjANiwbWbEzq8TP5ZrSzpDkTGt0Q kKEEYbcJ5Jj9poWAg576OinSMnOrs/wziJbqoYmwwRJvoZT8vag0ILsQwV5E8mCSaQTu AEulesamO4sIufsaF8pdkOIL6WznCEkLzqHz6aPDux+oUfHcfJYUrtJ0vsZYCp1RUoBH YjY+2pwGUlqLCxzRIohOJld3jFucba/biyQT3y3coERcbpvLhe4jCRqSuntY/SwiCWi8 93FuqOXArKowBLH3k0WtDZeWf5+3dWeT+ByCD6jIljOq0wU0aLULtwp6O3uE3DOsFE3x Oyvg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533f7vpyatowqPFyH9wSShfTG/yHqG/QJIcaQv3n+qBCu5qeajVN uwIZm/Rmp9bjKxABisGzceN3Jw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwVSnDbUcIcAJtnO7MJZvCTTUXz6mz6XOxW5ydeTHAyeiut9pYdygVqN1iGD37B6kI/8cOIDw==
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:4d82:: with SMTP id a2mr21450692qtw.182.1620232953540; Wed, 05 May 2021 09:42:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by with ESMTPSA id x7sm5282797qts.42.2021. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 05 May 2021 09:42:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ted Lemon <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_EF0BC570-2A78-4733-B53D-51F8097BB1FD"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.\))
Date: Wed, 05 May 2021 12:42:31 -0400
In-Reply-To: <8746.1620229451@localhost>
Cc: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <>, "STARK, BARBARA H" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
To: Michael Richardson <>
References: <> <8746.1620229451@localhost>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dns-privacy] [dhcwg] WGLC started -- draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options-12
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 May 2021 16:42:41 -0000

On May 5, 2021, at 11:44 AM, Michael Richardson <> wrote:
> The end user might suffer slightly by having locally served
> reverse names that are no longer connected: they should obsolete that zone
> when they realize that their PD hasn't been renewed, until such time,
> (if it was a flash renumber), they would be right to think that they
> legitimately control them.

In practice I don’t think this is an issue. The reverse lookup is usually triggered by receipt of a message from an IP address, so as long as the IP address is still in use internally, the presence of the reverse zone is wanted. When the address changes, the old zone becomes obsolete whether it continues to be served or not. The likelihood of the zone being re-allocated to some other network for which the original network will then do a reverse lookup is very small, so I don’t think there’s any reason to be concerned about this.