Re: [DNSOP] we already have a new version of this problem

Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk> Thu, 05 November 2015 13:24 UTC

Return-Path: <ray@bellis.me.uk>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A9701B2B7D for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 05:24:24 -0800 (PST)
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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
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 NBzFF-s31yyZ for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 05:24:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hydrogen.portfast.net (hydrogen.portfast.net [188.246.200.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 64E791B2B8F for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 05:24:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from i121-112-35-81.s41.a014.ap.plala.or.jp ([121.112.35.81]:58714 helo=Rays-MacBook-Pro.local) by hydrogen.portfast.net ([188.246.200.2]:465) with esmtpsa (fixed_plain:ray@bellis.me.uk) (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) id 1ZuKWX-0003te-T8 (Exim 4.72) (return-path <ray@bellis.me.uk>); Thu, 05 Nov 2015 13:24:18 +0000
To: George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org>, dnsop@ietf.org
References: <CAKr6gn0oiK9WKfN95b=muuxG0+0oKv8KDaq=xpabRf-zgCO+gQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <563B587B.5080905@bellis.me.uk>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 22:24:11 +0900
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAKr6gn0oiK9WKfN95b=muuxG0+0oKv8KDaq=xpabRf-zgCO+gQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/DJjJ7G7M7ICP5xCbjMDsKh6T8j0>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] we already have a new version of this problem
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 05 Nov 2015 13:24:24 -0000


On 05/11/2015 10:11, George Michaelson wrote:
> So can somebody explain to me what we are meant to do with a possible
> emerging homenet desire for .home?
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cheshire-homenet-dot-home/

This particular proposal was being discussed long before any of the
.onion et al proposals existed, but didn't get put into draft form until
slightly after.

> because I believe this isn't just the tail of odd requests from the tor
> people for various hash based names.. its another WG inside the IETF
> process thinking "oh.. .onion worked, so lets go do one"

Without my Homenet co-chair hat on, but as an interested party, my view
is that I'd like to see ".home" formally blocked from registration as a
new TLD [*] by putting it into the "locally served zones" list, and
perhaps sunk to AS112 to catch those queries that aren't caught via
locally served zones.

Ray

[*] AFAICR, ICANN have said that's their plan, but it's also the case
that ICANN plans and policies can change.