IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] [homenet] My assessment of .homenet as described during the WG session yesterday.

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Thu, 30 March 2017 19:52 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 2773C12894A for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 12:52:27 -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 33I_HN1sk632 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 12:52:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x22e.google.com (mail-io0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22e]) (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 59F48128BBB for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 12:52:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id z13so26891793iof.2 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 12:52:25 -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=ClCIukjRA5BSBbCCtg9XSzQAm2vx4WEGcbbIl8Nq7mo=; b=PQidZLilK2pB3wggTJW6i6MbFas7uGuzI6KobNGryt6LSrDqtrLv3XZhL+Eamukatj /DJGamqILDRTjNqp7fp0AmVIy7RGD4VDM6iYkQlZWqWEK9rIvbcTxhJkbR9y5XuYM3Fx yyhUansHwQg+xNRi/ujROA1NuHxO86jXzupXOhsLAT+/rjOk3nzZse6AWwKt19IyKgI1 J+rZlkLWcJIw8adpAv7NKsrLmE9wSpS12wbR56IzI/ev7KPqYTy6PBePKd5IqA7+fLlB AuELOIkwleupjiNkLBMUJspx6dsEhY4Lmyt8zUmeB2VSVLOdQr63xYAcYVSL/0vTMXDH /zJQ==
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=ClCIukjRA5BSBbCCtg9XSzQAm2vx4WEGcbbIl8Nq7mo=; b=qwruUcjHHn7R6ozZkxej8rQZxwMX1n2yVga0C2sqYiPi6Fz+JSiyJKVG9pd2wjBv7R IBJI1ndkgJDV6xwfUFmPKsCAKJXSDKVpl69YbsXruh+B7wChy18//SfInYCcKnqXoKap ahEOiMVTKJztZUIucEmK/SlrBR30UalWetWSBeDj0DIDVY/sLuFtYyGk5rpt2Ynm0ACt xfX7J18Qe1Hid9YiEHUVg6jmEawwC4tIn/DZ5FpBvnqf3TNl8+GoeaPa2olYjTS+VWKI ZBK1TIpGx+yY4zm+8SGDgi2sLoN05zF+Zym0HMcygWrcTgUVPNejwxmCv0F2rZJDbp0/ XFzA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H3CvBSJ/ZNaUi8mI2Ba8tdbYbQsZj+rkmxp/+vhbJSRMGnG4CtaQ0p5Nu0myRsxHw==
X-Received: by 10.107.27.204 with SMTP id b195mr2685770iob.26.1490903544598; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 12:52:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-91f6.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-91f6.meeting.ietf.org. [31.133.145.246]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c3sm57374ith.24.2017.03.30.12.52.23 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 30 Mar 2017 12:52:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Message-Id: <8C25D5ED-B9C5-4D46-94E0-C15A4538A9A8@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_FE909100-B2E7-47D4-BA60-34A0C1FB8E66"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 14:52:22 -0500
In-Reply-To: <D3F59F43-D1D2-4F2B-A29C-B8B3E90CB304@shinkuro.com>
Cc: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>, Brian Dickson <brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, "dnsop@ietf.org WG" <dnsop@ietf.org>, Mark Townsley <mark@townsley.net>, HOMENET <homenet@ietf.org>, Terry Manderson <terry.manderson@icann.org>
To: Steve Crocker <steve@shinkuro.com>
References: <DAC83E33-A206-4EAA-BC96-E26ACCC013A6@icann.org> <20170330052006.008D66A4B0BE@rock.dv.isc.org> <CAH1iCir+ymEPi31f+ynCrPT4kfumPTLFMuyG4HdnnxYbbfg82w@mail.gmail.com> <4075745.jMg8SJvaMW@linux-hs2j> <D3F59F43-D1D2-4F2B-A29C-B8B3E90CB304@shinkuro.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/GhvJVgm5uffBb62TIcGSI111CJs>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [homenet] My assessment of .homenet as described during the WG session yesterday.
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: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 19:52:27 -0000

On Mar 30, 2017, at 1:11 PM, Steve Crocker <steve@shinkuro.com> wrote:
> And I remain puzzled as to why a simple NXDOMAIN response from the root isn’t exactly the right thing and why it matters whether it’s signed or not.

Because DNSSEC.   A validating stub will see a proof of nonexistence and ignore anything the local recursive resolver offers.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email