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

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Mon, 20 March 2017 17:17 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 521A213157A for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 10:17:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 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_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uQ7ewICkdzLM for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 10:17:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt0-x234.google.com (mail-qt0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F09813151C for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 10:16:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt0-x234.google.com with SMTP id r45so112261806qte.3 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 10:16:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=hMss7MPVmMPNU2lXE8OPJRc+dw6kDY9owLcqkgwP9Kg=; b=YPUYRASIxGaQmjsPATuQvaZafHDK/KqmQUqCtyN/EQ4B5Hhu+NiCZd4t5FxaA56uoE qDDxlEr+c8KqL9Z8nyPD/a/RYLSg3aQ4L0Cgg+mFIUXsIK+I4OZ5F3cw7ej3m1AAxmKo 3yypufoc1Ei3yR3LZGqWAaSxJajN9TZe+BygGnApnq/HDOxPKml8UY+Bhxt3QrSBrbhW zt7hMWnoxRtyDmkLa212fi8C0ZF0ixDQxE/0wN5mxHgYJMX0eMIBdYiljbC995Q9VVFC NgHZwcqLuhBIlHn+cHnQltxBDJ1wmTBzLdUOiyLxtF5oD6mk4wh635lE/6qIe4uzCYCv smlw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=hMss7MPVmMPNU2lXE8OPJRc+dw6kDY9owLcqkgwP9Kg=; b=l3Znd4XTVdhjm0K8PcGvLJCK3XeKVqN/gZDemiKeopriNDBau0M7Q0hB6iPRu2HLQW bw42OGTfc3dAo1RHQE+0rXzTCJRF2Na9hjanZdC8a6zWR9AEiTBQaAhJTRt8HJEfQoWc aCYZGFU/VkjrKe+m0XdsQ+ZE7155RDlv89JVmtQ9g7boVvSaE83guJkvSt2pkqMLi9wR e+CLlI6oUtrcHHK8Kq7+50/FFIcHJPHzzf57l6nT3tr2YXTcvS+kuId0VqXgCbAVor7F DZaS916yjh3mjj+IZgaSNqYwwZHRqgAn/gG1hYxGiJezqu+T7ASCKD9iULxhZUiGGOnM sl1g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H1MGXFnyA6yzJpuk6bMShDV1Ql298WQp4cHXgbL27B23bZUhAjwJeenBux3zydprw==
X-Received: by 10.237.34.125 with SMTP id o58mr26418744qtc.108.1490030171645; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 10:16:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.30.228] (c-73-167-64-188.hsd1.nh.comcast.net. [73.167.64.188]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r4sm12762716qkl.34.2017.03.20.10.16.10 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 20 Mar 2017 10:16:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Message-Id: <E07AFAEB-2B84-4610-87E7-94CF32CF3761@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_7C887240-4686-4F71-9388-681B4D88CD20"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 13:16:09 -0400
In-Reply-To: <AB11455F-7E43-4CB3-9F13-DB6A09F739EB@vigilsec.com>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>, Terry Manderson <terry.manderson@icann.org>
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
References: <1E14B142-680B-4E30-809B-68E03EB6E326@gmail.com> <61FD3EE3-3043-4AB1-9823-6A9D61B1438C@vigilsec.com> <BE2A3845-D8AA-433A-9F00-1056ECFD335F@fugue.com> <21C8F856-FE3F-42A6-A8ED-888D0797B68B@vigilsec.com> <60C85486-E351-4C42-ADEB-FCBB56F4EA27@fugue.com> <AB11455F-7E43-4CB3-9F13-DB6A09F739EB@vigilsec.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/CHdFw9gReNNXel18KXeOVRaL9jg>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 17:17:50 -0000

On Mar 20, 2017, at 1:08 PM, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:
> 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.

So it seems to me that your position is not that it's inappropriate for a name to both be registered in the root zone and in the special-use names registry, but rather that two processes would have to be followed in order for this to happen.   Is that a reasonable interpretation of what you have said?

Also, can you talk about what you think the process should be?   Are you saying that this is not a technical use under the MoU, or just that for this particular technical use, a different process is required?