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

[Russ Housley <[e-mail]>]

Ralph:

>>>> 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 You have said that in your opinion special-use names must not be published in the root zone, but that was already obvious from what you said previously.   What I am asking you to do is explain _why_ special-use names must not be published in the root zone.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…

I would be fine with collaboration between the IETF and ICANN to come up with a way to make this happen, but that is not what this document says.

This document registeres the .homenet TLD in the special-use registry and then tasks IANA "to arrange for an insecure delegation for '.homenet' in the root zone.  This delegation MUST NOT be signed, …”

This document does not describe a collaborative approach.

Russ