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

Terry Manderson <> Wed, 29 March 2017 15:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A0A1129540; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 08:37:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h5N5CYR3Qu3y; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 08:37:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8BB2B128D19; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 08:37:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1178.4; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 08:37:10 -0700
Received: from ([]) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1178.000; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 08:37:10 -0700
From: Terry Manderson <>
To: james woodyatt <>
CC: HOMENET <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [homenet] My assessment of .homenet as described during the WG session yesterday.
Thread-Index: AQHSp+lHBXnknGGzd0m0I5wpP+R/Q6GsXKWAgAC1KgA=
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 15:37:09 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.20.0.170309
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"; boundary="B_3573682628_169053644"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [homenet] My assessment of .homenet as described during the WG session yesterday.
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: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 15:37:17 -0000

Hi James,

Q1. Both. The root zone, as a registry, is not an IETF registry.

Q2. My guess, and I am really guessing here, that if a process were to be created by the ICANN community to accept such requests from the IETF, it would be encompassing of both.


On 30/03/2017, 12:48 AM, "homenet on behalf of james woodyatt" < on behalf of> wrote:

    q1. What precisely about “3” is not covered in IETF policy terms? That the document directs IANA to request a delegation in the root zone? Or that the document directs IANA to request an *insecure* delegation in the root zone, whereas a secure delegation
     *would* be adequately covered? Or both of these?
    q2. If the answer to q1 is that both aspects of “3” are not covered in IETF policy terms, and that each one will require a set of collaborative discussions with the ICANN community and new processes that handle each of these situations, are there any expectations
     about which of the two processes, if there are two and not just one, can be defined in a workable period of time for HOMENET?
    --james woodyatt <>