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

Ted Lemon <> Mon, 20 March 2017 16:28 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD3FD128792 for <>; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 09:28:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id grnh7CUGhBs8 for <>; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 09:28:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 991651294D3 for <>; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 09:28:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id 1so114473205qkl.3 for <>; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 09:28:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; 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;; 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 with SMTP id s3mr16130992qkh.161.1490027283703; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 09:28:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id t2sm12758593qkh.0.2017. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 20 Mar 2017 09:28:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ted Lemon <>
Message-Id: <>
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: <>
Cc: Terry Manderson <>, dnsop <>
To: Russ Housley <>
References: <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03
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: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 16:28:08 -0000

On Mar 20, 2017, at 11:43 AM, Russ Housley <> 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"?