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

sign it with a bad key or bad DS. this goes to SERVFAIL and its NXDOMAIN.

-G

On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 9:48 AM, james woodyatt <jhw@google.com> wrote:
> Hi Terry,
>
> Clarifying questions here...
>
> On Mar 28, 2017, at 12:32, Terry Manderson <terry.manderson@icann.org>
> wrote:
>
>
> My summary of the situation is this.
>
> 1) .homenet _COULD_ be added to the special use domain registry based on
> RFC6761
>
> 2) The expected future operation of HOMENET resolution for DNSSEC validating
> stub resolvers requires a break in the DNSSEC chain of trust.
>
> 3) To achieve "2", the document _additionally_ asks IANA to insert an
> insecure delegation into the root zone
>
>
> 4) The ask for "3" is not covered in IETF policy terms, in fact it tries to
> put an entry into someone else's registry (the root zone), and will require
> a set of collaborative discussions with the ICANN community and a new
> process that handles this situation. There are no expectations that this
> process will be defined in a reasonable time for the uses of HOMENET.
>
>
> q1. What precisely about “3” is not covered in IETF policy terms? That the
> document directs IANA to request a delegation in the root zone? Or that the
> document directs IANA to request an *insecure* delegation in the root zone,
> whereas a secure delegation *would* be adequately covered? Or both of these?
>
> q2. If the answer to q1 is that both aspects of “3” are not covered in IETF
> policy terms, and that each one will require a set of collaborative
> discussions with the ICANN community and new processes that handle each of
> these situations, are there any expectations about which of the two
> processes, if there are two and not just one, can be defined in a workable
> period of time for HOMENET?
>
> --james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>