Re: [DNSOP] ALT-TLD and (insecure) delgations.

Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> Wed, 08 February 2017 08:43 UTC

Return-Path: <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
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 4733A129959 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 00:43:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 Vj5PSspSSg-t for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 00:43:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx4.nic.fr (mx4.nic.fr [IPv6:2001:67c:2218:2::4:12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2A3DB129487 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 00:43:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx4.nic.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id B28062806BA; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 09:43:44 +0100 (CET)
Received: from relay2.nic.fr (relay2.nic.fr [192.134.4.163]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD44E2806B8; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 09:43:44 +0100 (CET)
Received: from b12.nic.fr (b12.tech.ipv6.nic.fr [IPv6:2001:67c:1348:7::86:133]) by relay2.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB9D9B38003; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 09:43:14 +0100 (CET)
Received: by b12.nic.fr (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A566340335; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 09:43:14 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 09:43:14 +0100
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
To: Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk>
Message-ID: <20170208084314.dqpqw3meow76wmer@nic.fr>
References: <CAPt1N1mbzhS19G_uDA8HokVxXuHy5uA7F1c84-1yUUpqZ2ifJQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.OSX.2.20.1702052315130.13902@ary.qy> <CAPt1N1m2mowdCF6igU0TN-FCcjas9AaY-uGma4HgPGKx0Jg4Tw@mail.gmail.com> <4E481C14-1C2B-4A18-A4F2-582208C1DDE3@ogud.com> <6B4E9F56-1487-4E09-9245-167C4790AB3D@gmail.com> <EFFF717C-3A5A-4877-8B40-2D5DF42FD19C@ogud.com> <91527611-CBAE-4DFD-8086-5D6499594108@gmail.com> <c1af826c-899e-db90-f592-514874660d7a@bellis.me.uk> <alpine.DEB.2.11.1702061633570.23062@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk> <e5e78d51-4880-c71d-97b6-c833f42f963d@bellis.me.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <e5e78d51-4880-c71d-97b6-c833f42f963d@bellis.me.uk>
X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 9.0
X-Kernel: Linux 4.8.0-2-amd64 x86_64
X-Charlie: Je suis Charlie
Organization: NIC France
X-URL: http://www.nic.fr/
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20161126 (1.7.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/YkITwD5EXxX4W3AqbBTBJX4pbE8>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] ALT-TLD and (insecure) delgations.
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Wed, 08 Feb 2017 08:43:47 -0000

On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 06:12:31PM +0000,
 Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk> wrote 
 a message of 28 lines which said:

> The "locally served zones" and "special use domains" registries are
> different.

Why are they different, by the way? I really do not understand
that. The "locally served zones" registry should be a strict subset of
the "special use domains" registry, for the case where RFC 6761 says
"4. Caching DNS Servers: Are developers of caching domain name servers
expected to make their implementations recognize these names as
special and treat them differently?  If so, how?" and the answer is
"serve locally".

[Speaking of this, the lack of a formal language in the "special use
domains" registry, allowing a resolver to be compiled with automatic
inclusion of all the special cases, is the only really serious problem
in RFC 6761. I regret that draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-02 does not even
mention it.]

> It's possible that some special use domains might benefit from
> special treatment in the root zone, too (".localhost" ?)

Let me advertise again my draft :-) draft-bortzmeyer-dname-root