Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

[Ralph Droms <[e-mail]>]

> On Mar 22, 2017, at 1:11 PM, Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 09:19:24AM -0700, Ray Bellis wrote:
>> Arguably I'm not "typical", but IMHO we shouldn't be designing for the
>> lowest common denominator.
> 
> That argument is absurd on the face of it, because anyone sufficiently
> clueful about systems to be using ssh or hand-entering domain names is
> also sufficiently clueful to recognize that maybe they should use the
> google search result that pertains to networking rather than the US
> DoD.  (Presumably these are the same people who have figured out that
> iab.org and iab.com are not the same organizations.)  Therefore,
> homenet.arpa would work just fine for such people, there'd be no
> design for LCD, and also we'd get something that would work and
> wouldn't involve a constitutional crisis for IANA.
> 
>> Either way, the Homenet WG has reached its consensus decision to request
>> ".homenet" rather than ".homenet.arpa".
> 
> Since the point of this discussion is to inform IETF consensus,
> HOMENET's consensus is not the only thing that counts.  It is entirely
> possible that HOMENET's consensus will not be the IETF consensus.
> 
>> To those that say "no insecure delegations in the root zone" because
>> "DNSSEC is good"
> 
> I don't think anyone is saying anything about that.  The point is that
> _someone else_ gets to decide.  The IETF has literally no say in the
> decision about what goes in the root zone itself, and hasn't since the
> IETF signed its MoU with ICANN.  (Some argue that for this reason the
> IETF must never allocate a top-level label.  I do not agree with them,
> but there is absolutely no question about whether we are in a position
> to decide actual registrations in the root zone.)
> 
> The plain fact is that the IETF IANA considerations in
> draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03 makes a request of IANA that the IETF has no
> business making, because we are requesting an entry in a registry
> whose policy is controlled by someone else.  It's clear that the
> weasel words "arrange for" are there to pretend we're not making such
> a request it, but the MUST NOT be signed is an attempt to specify
> protocol operation in a registry where we have no business working.
> If this proceeds as IETF consensus, it will be apparent that it is the
> IETF, not ICANN, that threatens the stability of the IANA
> arrangements.  I hope we do not have to explore that rathole in my
> lifetime.

I agree that the request is misdirected toward IANA and misplaced in an "IANA Considerations" section.  If the IETF consensus is to find a way to instantiate the appropriate entry in the root zone, such an instantiation should acknowledge several realities and recognize that IETF is making a request of ICANN.  It seems to me homenet-dot should be revised:

* take the relevant text out of the IANA considerations section
* add a section that
  - motivates and explicitly defines the desired entry in the root zone
  - suggests that a request be made directly to ICANN 
  - explicitly points out that no process for such a request exists, and it might be necessary for IETF and ICANN to develop a mutually acceptable process before the request from .homenet can be considered
  - asks for IETF advice on this plan

- Ralph

> 
> Best regards,
> 
> A (speaking, of course, for myself)
> 
> -- 
> Andrew Sullivan
> [e-mail]
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop