Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Mon, 20 March 2017 16:28 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
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 DD3FD128792 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 09:28:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 grnh7CUGhBs8 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 09:28:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x22c.google.com (mail-qk0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 991651294D3 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 09:28:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id 1so114473205qkl.3 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 09:28:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=VAmtKla9uVSocrDGTnv6piln5lXeEtq8cO3LI5OBsUI=; b=GNLfXYnCOeSXzIMZGB5FSHBONDmpp5hwZTyQMuqPNTm52RKhVx2P9BoqykR+2SjDwg B2JikP5qaqolGzMJd4LgTJcyoGbkoh5lrprZMm9QqTonCU+bOFByplMrEWnHzvsE8zYa WO0fSLSWouHVSnk8aTocOzsFT8RL4A55TGjCrRo7ia+IOsHb95eeVk19WOHtGyqY2KkR 5UjCE1T4Cm9oYxoik26tCBJ7DyAC33oHLUyTTTsKtflhvLPkU10ZIK4I2OZq3zzU09qf bOMrXrhUL3TEQrSw/VKjIPdpFEBicxYBkgy69iTbciJAcyWHoUnjl+SUD/9YWAN1ysmu Xz0Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=VAmtKla9uVSocrDGTnv6piln5lXeEtq8cO3LI5OBsUI=; b=GtBT3cPgO3F0aGJVQKpEryQVKXKeFquUx+AmILW0nbcREFt53vq46Xs5NEFs1jdta1 hLqjYftuDowtUNlcVFUcrq+O+2uCbvQ22VQcAth68lBpxQ7YONlIM7C7qgn7+ksINnVr XZdSa7MWyOyieZIAP/gI3znZucHMED31/km1xMxVOhCHimfCU1nP5xrOe84ZAwV5Lk7l SBwALm1gieOq9u4luE640dyShAgjlEJM5boMp9i/Xc98wOnXvJGZehibjbHm+tP5MNoW wujbDq3cKN7gTVb0j2Y5lTOBHBj66fUoFuFSANLyVZOpQglm3SAyoIFyOyPx0Qn7lEuI 2ylw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H32CzG6SFfX7Ijo570171V86/ZOGazhyrQd16zfTfcpPMx5HNEiNTsO4svvb8VLjw==
X-Received: by 10.55.44.3 with SMTP id s3mr16130992qkh.161.1490027283703; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 09:28:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.30.228] (c-73-167-64-188.hsd1.nh.comcast.net. [73.167.64.188]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t2sm12758593qkh.0.2017.03.20.09.28.02 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 20 Mar 2017 09:28:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Message-Id: <BE2A3845-D8AA-433A-9F00-1056ECFD335F@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_CD5EEDB4-7293-4EF5-8ED8-2272F94853E6"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 12:28:00 -0400
In-Reply-To: <61FD3EE3-3043-4AB1-9823-6A9D61B1438C@vigilsec.com>
Cc: Terry Manderson <terry.manderson@icann.org>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
References: <1E14B142-680B-4E30-809B-68E03EB6E326@gmail.com> <61FD3EE3-3043-4AB1-9823-6A9D61B1438C@vigilsec.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/eHvdwa4rVjyZ5qA1Q73F2mGvRNc>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 16:28:08 -0000

On Mar 20, 2017, at 11:43 AM, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:
> I have a big problem with Section 6 of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03.  If the domain name is to be published in the root zone, then I do not think that the special-use TLD registration is appropriate.  That said, if the requirement for publication in the root zone is removed, I do not have a problem with proceeding with a special-use TLD registration.

You seem to have missed out on the discussion that we had on this, Russ.   The problem is that we don't have a choice.   Either it is a special-use name, which means literally that, or it is not.   It can't not be a special-use name, because its use is special—that is, different than other names.

At the same time, it is a name that is resolved using the DNS protocol.   Its special use requires this.   I think we go into that in the document, but to recap, if there is no un-signed delegation, validating resolvers will find any subdomain of the name invalid, and so the special use won't work.

We could of course require resolvers to special-case this particular domain, but I think you can see that that sort of solution doesn't scale, so I presume you are not suggesting we do this.

So, with that in mind, can you articulate _why_ you think that the publication in the root zone and the special use registration are together, as you put it, "inappropriate"?