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

Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> Tue, 21 March 2017 18:34 UTC

Return-Path: <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
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 E9D77124C27 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 11:34:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ecs.soton.ac.uk
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 oEX-5u9Ceac1 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 11:34:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk [IPv6:2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8FFC91286CA for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 11:34:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v2LIYPBA002494; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 18:34:25 GMT
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.2 falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk v2LIYPBA002494
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=ecs.soton.ac.uk; s=201304; t=1490121265; bh=Pu0DePUBldSD6ESGnDTYcRnCtlc=; h=Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=Xlfz/kxpkvGvkIDG/u1UezoxZrrspVO2sonpE18I+EbJkX2Et5L7gpySPPJmPNKXb tSAUw7HXDzoVpZi/qCLS6O7pvbzwD+407LHXUdD6ZRB5bXOKi6JvfZKGHQTHJgapig px4x3fO7n/9bcnO+O8K1XnjrvwfAHRfJbxzUZJOY=
Received: from gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk ([2001:630:d0:f102:250:56ff:fea0:401]) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk [2001:630:d0:f102:250:56ff:fea0:68da]) envelope-from <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> with ESMTP (valid=N/A) id y2KIYP1747615876BH ret-id none; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 18:34:25 +0000
Received: from 20010a88d51011.ipv6.customer.clara.net (20010a88d51011.ipv6.customer.clara.net [IPv6:2001:a88:d510:1101:98db:ef22:374:518a] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v2LIYJMO004790 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 21 Mar 2017 18:34:20 GMT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
From: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <AA7C5D4D-CE9E-41D4-9382-A232D379ACCD@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 18:34:18 +0000
Cc: Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com>, IETF dnsop Working Group <dnsop@ietf.org>, Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <EMEW3|f5ec18bf30629ea610ca97cb1b0c9729y2KIYP03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|2D82810E-E92E-498E-99E8-0D9C467559CF@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
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> <AA7C5D4D-CE9E-41D4-9382-A232D379ACCD@gmail.com> <2D82810E-E92E-498E-99E8-0D9C467559CF@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: Suzanne Woolf <suzworldwide@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
X-ECS-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean
X-ECS-MailScanner-SpamScore: ss
X-smtpf-Report: sid=y2KIYP174761587600; tid=y2KIYP1747615876BH; client=relay,forged,no_ptr,ipv6; mail=; rcpt=; nrcpt=4:0; fails=0
X-ECS-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-ECS-MailScanner-ID: v2LIYPBA002494
X-ECS-MailScanner-From: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/UojktU3GEg-cYZYL1ZDeZK1Qspo>
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 18:34:33 -0000

> On 21 Mar 2017, at 17:30, Suzanne Woolf <suzworldwide@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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? 

In the UK, I believe the largest residential ISP has used the .home suffix on millions of its CPEs for several years.

How much of that leaks is another question.

Tim