Re: [DNSOP] [homenet] WGLC on "redact" and "homenet-dot"

[Ralph Droms <[e-mail]>]

> On Dec 14, 2016, at 12:37 PM, Michael StJohns <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On 12/14/2016 12:34 PM, Steve Crocker wrote:
>> Mike,
>> 
>> A query to the root for .homenet results in a *signed* answer that .homenet does not exist.  This should suffice for the purpose you have in mind.
> 
> Yup - that's my comment:
> 
> The third way is to do no delegation from the root for .homenet and just ensure that that name never gets registered and published.
> 
>> 
>> Ralph,
>> 
>> Re moving to the homenet list, I will try to send the same info there once I have time to sign up for that list.
> 
> Actually, I think Ray was probably more right on where this - specifically - should be discussed.  Once done, then Homenet needs to consider what to do about the guidance.

On the other hand, homenet has the expertise in the specific problem space, and will ultimately need to make the decision about how to proceed.  Engagement in the discussion is likely to help the homenet WG make an informed decision.

- Ralph

> 
> Mike
> 
> 
>> 
>> Steve
>> 
>>> On Dec 14, 2016, at 12:23 PM, Michael StJohns <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 12/14/2016 12:07 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
>>>> I hope it was obvious that I was pretty confident that you actually had a reason.   :)
>>>> 
>>>> The issue what what you are saying is that sometimes it is technically correct for a name to not be validatable.   The reason we want an unsecured delegation for .homenet is that .homenet can't be validated using the root trust anchor, because the name is has no globally unique meaning.   So the reason that you've given doesn't apply to this case, although I completely agree with your reason as it applies to the case of names that are globally unique.
>>> 
>>> I went back and forth on this three times in 3 minutes "Steve's right, no Ted's right, no, Steve's right" before settling on "I think Steve is mostly right, but there may be an alternative third approach".
>>> 
>>> Here's the reasoning:   Either your home router understands .homenet or it doesn't.  If it doesn't, then your homenet shouldn't be using .homenet and any .homenet lookups to the real world should fail.  If it does, then it should trap .homenet queries and do with it what it will.
>>> 
>>> Doing it Steve's way removes one attack surface for non-compliant routers on home networks and for all the rest of the networks (e.g. feeding a user a URL with a .homenet name on a fake webpage).
>>> 
>>> However, I think doing it Steve's way requires a *real* TLD zone for .homenet, if for no other reason than to include NSEC and NSEC3 records indicating an empty domain.
>>> 
>>> The third way is to do no delegation from the root for .homenet and just ensure that that name never gets registered and published.
>>> 
>>> "If it's stupid and it works, it's not stupid".
>>> 
>>> Mike
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 11:59 AM, Steve Crocker <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> The latter.  All DNS answers at all levels should be signed to assure the querier of the integrity of the answer.  This has been the goal and best practice for a very long time.  For example, it was the explicit objective of the quote substantial DNSSEC effort funded by the US Dept of Homeland Security starting in 2004.
>>>> 
>>>> Within ICANN, in 2009 we made it a formal requirement of all new gTLDs must be signed.  The ccTLDs are not subject to ICANN rules but they have been gradually moving toward signed status.  Most of the major ccTLDs are signed and many of the others are too.  Detailed maps are created every week by ISOC.
>>>> 
>>>> I will also try to contribute to the homenet mailing list.
>>>> 
>>>> Steve
>>>> 
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>> 
>>>> On Dec 14, 2016, at 11:36 AM, Ted Lemon <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Is this a matter of religious conviction, or is there some issue with unsecured delegations in the root that you are assuming is so obvious that you don't need to tell us about it?   :)
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Steve Crocker <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>> I am strongly opposed to unsecured delegations in the root zone.  No matter what the problem is, an unsecured delegation is not the answer.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Steve
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Dec 14, 2016, at 11:11 AM, Suzanne Woolf <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> DNSOP participants who are interested in the special use names problem might want to review draft-ietf-homenet-redact (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-homenet-redact/) and draft-ietf-homenet-dot (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-homenet-dot/) for the WGLC on them in the HOMENET wg.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> WGLC comments should go to the WG list, [e-mail].
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> If you do, it will also be helpful to look at RFC 7788, which specifies the Home                                                           Networking Control Protocol for homenets. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The redact draft is intended to remove the inadvertent reservation of “.home” as the default namespace for homenets in RFC 7788. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The homenet-dot draft is intended to provide a request under RFC 6761 for “.homenet” as a special use name to serve as a default namespace for homenets. It also asks IANA for an unsecured delegation in the root zone to avoid DNSSEC validation failures for local names under “.homenet”. The root zone request to IANA has caused some discussion within the WG, as there’s no precedent for such a request.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Terry Manderson mentioned the homenet-dot draft briefly at the mic in Seoul. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The WGLC ends this week.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Suzanne
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> From: Ray Bellis <[e-mail]>
>>>>>>> Subject: [homenet] WGLC on "redact" and "homenet-dot"
>>>>>>> Date: November 17, 2016 at 11:27:08 PM EST
>>>>>>> To: HOMENET <[e-mail]>
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> This email commences a four week WGLC comment period on
>>>>>>> draft-ietf-homenet-redact and draft-ietf-homenet-dot
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Please send any comments to the WG list as soon as possible.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Whilst there was a very strong hum in favour of ".homenet" vs anything
>>>>>>> else during the meeting, and there's some discussion of that ongoing
>>>>>>> here on the list - I'd like us to please keep the discussion of the
>>>>>>> choice of domain separate from other substantive comment about the
>>>>>>> drafts' contents.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> thanks,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Ray
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> homenet mailing list
>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> DNSOP mailing list
>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> DNSOP mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> DNSOP mailing list
>>>> 
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> DNSOP mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> DNSOP mailing list
>> 
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop