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

Terry Manderson <> Wed, 29 March 2017 15:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A70EE126557; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 08:41:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 PTu2Jrn0nSkK; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 08:41:41 -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 4DCBE1297C3; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 08:41:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1178.4; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 08:41:37 -0700
Received: from ([]) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1178.000; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 08:41:37 -0700
From: Terry Manderson <>
To: Michael Richardson <>
CC: HOMENET <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [DNSOP] [homenet] My assessment of .homenet as described during the WG session yesterday.
Thread-Index: AQHSp+lHBXnknGGzd0m0I5wpP+R/Q6GsYgKAgACxDQA=
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 15:41:36 +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_3573682896_1803442087"
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 15:41:44 -0000

Hi Michael,

There is no policy or technical barrier to proceeding with Procedurally that, of course, would necessitate some WG discussion and consensus.


On 30/03/2017, 1:07 AM, "DNSOP on behalf of Michael Richardson" < on behalf of> wrote:

    Terry Manderson <> wrote:
        > B) seek a .homenet special use domain WITHOUT the delegation request
        > AND ask the IETF/IESG/IAB to commence the discussion with the ICANN
        > community to achieve an insecure delegation
        > c) seek a <SOMETHING>.arpa insecure special use delegation
        > d) go for "B" and if that doesn't work shift to "C"
    Is there some reason we can not proceed with "C", concurrently with (B).
    This might cause stub resolvers to have to have two cases
    (, and .homenet) eventually, but at least we could deploy
    and attempt interop with NOW, and it would more clearly
    permit "home." to be removed from code.
        > Again, this situation is fluid and as discussions evolve I will provide
        > more information when it is appropriate. In the mean-time I would very
        > much like everyone to take a calming breath and understand that I am
        > taking a very pragmatic view of this concern.
    Thank you!
    Michael Richardson <>, Sandelman Software Works
     -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-