Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

Ralph Droms <> Mon, 20 March 2017 17:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72562131551 for <>; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 10:15:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oCeXrzFxMB34 for <>; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 10:15:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3452213157A for <>; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 10:14:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id v127so115764779qkb.2 for <>; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 10:14:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=ci4cNh9beh8aUM0Ur2hHr0H1nI+XzxuFLameeF4qTQU=; b=jxG+1gqlzejMoTFPKI1xZLFhKTjxaYo1FUTJY/fp0//D+puRbzob2MTf93ceRXCkgt JP1wjITqWO0Cmc/GtdAzBxZjaaQETfeI8dUE4WvciRho+3iGmQMgGI/agBX4iQraFBx6 ZNDZV5L8U8d7uApuYhkZ7zmXd841ELKj7y29Fbq+oWcpDrrUk5/nHAED5jnsLpXVcKkU bH2Sr5wIHmxATkVwx42NP/X/V3Vk/UlX1zt4uG+huEWDxi959lQscY7FK4SstDnRKOFu hb9ggEzmTFL5lDfGYbH54gFsoq6h5UB5ywlKOp6JJ2jQgW4CYcgNF9Aybg+Mn9ZJzQ2W AFyQ==
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=ci4cNh9beh8aUM0Ur2hHr0H1nI+XzxuFLameeF4qTQU=; b=WYdVCw7IOtNeD4DFPhyVc3Yw6/X/C5EbM11GuBmMpNcO+q+ZRAQT90bcQPZVx7XLrX j5auHzilsRRlRucKjqq4oY5sNHzzaZIx+3pq/d0eEekWQKzjvtWVjHa68amvxnefdXtG rakp6bW8FIcG4U3aVc6NdNXa6vKZtyMgDK33xSgpQSzAoXKz+VIGt/6sa3NtG+gkvnrU 36YH+irG+vuYNhUVDbTTcaLh74GRNdx688658vNIQiOkJlBXpLtmqtYW8vgfvTFPmNof TLJrz5noJaFpzNhNVqiNTwOGZqH3EHrNy/pHuzLOfuvfSzcyL5d4cigkq5DdYImkTJlH XR7g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H29pKJpu+26Ezyum0LzijFecBrNgv0+GHa4WDiu5VNvWTVYoDnHbtNnKCTzsxm70Q==
X-Received: by with SMTP id o190mr16476031qkd.46.1490030068370; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 10:14:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:18f:801:600:5d80:704a:d85a:81a8? ([2601:18f:801:600:5d80:704a:d85a:81a8]) by with ESMTPSA id m62sm12782212qkf.31.2017. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 20 Mar 2017 10:14:27 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ralph Droms <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_842BD4B3-0547-4C8B-9921-21CBD049F42E"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 13:14:25 -0400
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: Ted Lemon <>, dnsop <>, Terry Manderson <>
To: Russ Housley <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 17:15:52 -0000

> On Mar 20, 2017, at 1:08 PM, Russ Housley <> wrote:
>>> We have a different view of the intended purpose of the special-use TLD registry.  Sadly, the RFC does not include language that resolves this difference.
>> I understand that we have different views.   However, I am asking you specifically to articulate _your_ view.
>> You have said that in your opinion special-use names must not be published in the root zone, but that was already obvious from what you said previously.   What I am asking you to do is explain _why_ special-use names must not be published in the root zone.
> There are other processes for adding names to the root zone.  In my opinion, using the special-use TLD registry as a means of putting a name, even one that has a different scope and use case, is an end run around that process.

Russ - In my opinion, the special-use domain registry is not being used to put the name in the root zone.  The observation is that the special-use definition of this TLD requires both an entry in the special-use domain name registry, and an entry in the root zone.  There is no process at present for adding such an entry to the root zone.  draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03 explicitly recognizes the lack of such a process and that a process may need to be developed.

Seems to me the important issue is that the entry in the root zone is required for correct operation of the locally-served .homenet zone, even if no process exists for creating that entry.  The appropriate parties can collaborate to develop any needed processes...

- Ralph

> Russ
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list