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

Suzanne Woolf <suzworldwide@gmail.com> Tue, 21 March 2017 17:30 UTC

Return-Path: <suzworldwide@gmail.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 84ADD1294D7 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 10:30:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 0Vn-s5Ema0J6 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 10:30:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x22a.google.com (mail-qk0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22a]) (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 B0DF91294ED for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 10:30:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id v127so140580140qkb.2 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 10:30:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=TGzADxRWjhSYGM03RijSoGaLuvKG3uQjsaedS6OwOWQ=; b=D1pfp/n57BDHdb62wIfAZmsat4YNYrPRBeiwYYOTYimxRGQsF7Nwu2lZirwtDLgXU4 B7qFN15hLQUH84tR9kQpFZFPc5H3u8uWFbAASvM1s+XFwrSwUJDrf3igA44dbPpkh2yF mNWN2LAQgBZef2xGvCxH2IMhNx5Ahvl37k4i/4M2/lF5vouiLjzk/rLWwAWtBEJpzXRR SZmnDsutuAInSrT3i1v8Z/qiGPa4RZKG9ASiQHFd8ePmG5jjnGo3qMGP097uPb0X1Jht TMCps3PXxDL1gxF2Lso9Gg2F1gwfgju5jxwUxqYLs7Eii1a57jVKLIQ85ytLro5e8xf8 Sj+g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=TGzADxRWjhSYGM03RijSoGaLuvKG3uQjsaedS6OwOWQ=; b=HyPVzwwziMV2f4yjaCXCJAlN6gTL9wiNATzK3YgrxGCTJdvTRz8QJ9l2POlHVmV3Tg 1N5ns63rTB/V9lARRtXaLyXqbc4ZCOxTZKAcE2WopjDoph+CyxFR5hFk9ChD9jzt48El 4Emp1VHEtf5UedFyzRI9UixaPK9XQn6XsHW5l5VKcGgLUkYBqdw5uhl2hoGsSAHSai3y TdgFvUX5pM7NjdtFn5cLNFMfLgxBz0KoRMlIfJFsF3FFtmX1/RYx+LpSAvOy4twHlEGe AvZyE1eaAQlvRkaWqH5z1arvNiU/uUCT6/xhzby54AtUNaJnsBLAn3VPyY7XXVHLAKSk UNqA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H0QPjA7ANFM20v+qah6b9MA7JTUENHc4aBuqwsYYvHyq4YbmJyiLsKM7LAnbCUEvg==
X-Received: by 10.55.207.87 with SMTP id e84mr21358589qkj.32.1490117403829; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 10:30:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:181:c381:c20:6d62:e795:8539:614a? ([2601:181:c381:c20:6d62:e795:8539:614a]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w123sm2632965qka.24.2017.03.21.10.30.02 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 21 Mar 2017 10:30:03 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
From: Suzanne Woolf <suzworldwide@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <1A714782-2EE5-49F8-A6C0-29852E90DA9C@rfc1035.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 13:30:01 -0400
Cc: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>, IETF dnsop Working Group <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <AA7C5D4D-CE9E-41D4-9382-A232D379ACCD@gmail.com>
References: <E07AFAEB-2B84-4610-87E7-94CF32CF3761@fugue.com> <7652B138-FEAB-4138-91FB-D71AFE6BEF2C@vigilsec.com> <6DCFBC9D-666A-4A3C-A418-82BB6AE3D25D@gmail.com> <alpine.LRH.2.20.999.1703210928390.28925@bofh.nohats.ca> <1A714782-2EE5-49F8-A6C0-29852E90DA9C@rfc1035.com>
To: Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/UMtyxdbZuzwIN0tLhMX0RnRCyGk>
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: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 17:30:06 -0000

Jim,

In the interests of preserving a distinction here that I believe is important: 

> On Mar 21, 2017, at 10:01 AM, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 21 Mar 2017, at 13:54, Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> wrote:
>> 
>> Suggesting we postpone .homenet while figuring out a new IETF/ICANN
>> process, something that can take years, would basically doom this rename
>> and install .home as the defacto standard.
> 
> At the risk of pouring petrol on the fire, .home *is* the defacto standard. Queries for this TLD account for ~4% of the 2016 DITL root server traffic. That's more than every delegated TLD except .com and .net. And the traffic for .home has been increasing in both absolute and relative terms in recent years. 3-4 years ago, it was ~3% of the DITL data set.

“Lots of queries for .home” doesn’t imply that it’s a “defacto standard” for anything in particular.

Is there any evidence connecting the use of the string “.home” in queries to the DNS with any particular protocol, type of equipment, network configuration, or software? 


thanks,
Suzanne