Re: [DNSOP] draft-wkumari-dnsop-internal and DNAME

Matt Larson <> Fri, 10 November 2017 13:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF5CA1242F7 for <>; Fri, 10 Nov 2017 05:53:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.141
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.141 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MOE4PSnmWg16 for <>; Fri, 10 Nov 2017 05:53:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 11956120721 for <>; Fri, 10 Nov 2017 05:53:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (localhost []) by (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 2F584C0075; Fri, 10 Nov 2017 08:53:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: by (Authenticated sender: with ESMTPSA id 06CC0C0055; Fri, 10 Nov 2017 08:53:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [] ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by (trex/5.7.12); Fri, 10 Nov 2017 08:53:07 -0500
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
From: Matt Larson <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 08:53:06 -0500
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 532014786.265238-29707d637f57f2c3517c265f179cc869
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: Stephane Bortzmeyer <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-wkumari-dnsop-internal and DNAME
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: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 13:53:09 -0000

> On Nov 10, 2017, at 7:12 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer <> wrote:
> draft-wkumari-dnsop-internal-00 says "This document requests that the
> .internal TLD be assigned to the IANA (similar to the way that
> .example is) and a DNSSEC insecure delegation (that is, a delegation
> with no DS records) be inserted into the root-zone, delegated to
> blackhole-[12]"
> This implies NS records in the root. Why not using the DNAMEs of RFC
> 7535 instead? I understand there is currently no ICANN process to add
> DNAME in the root zone but there is no process to add .internal
> either.

Without commenting on the contents of that particular draft, I'll note that from a technical/mechanical perspective, ICANN's and Verisign's root zone management systems already know how to deal with delegations. A DNAME in the root would require an unknown level of development by both parties.

While you're correct about no existing process (that I'm aware of) to add either .internal or a DNAME to the root, at least with a delegation there is only process work, not technical work, as well.

Adding new types of information to the root is certainly possible: I'm not trying to discourage that. But for planning and expectation-setting purposes, the community needs to take into account the long lead time that will be required for anything that requires technical modifications to the root zone management system.