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

Michael Richardson <> Wed, 29 March 2017 15:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8056D127599; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 08:07:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 wIlGeVozT-OI; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 08:07:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE8051293FB; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 08:07:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFF75200A3; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 11:31:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D772636E0; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 11:07:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <>
To: Terry Manderson <>
cc: HOMENET <>, "" <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 11:07:55 -0400
Message-ID: <>
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 15:07:57 -0000

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 =-