[DNSOP] Re: [Ext] Re: what problem are we trying to solve, was Call for Adoption: draft-davies-internal-tld

[Petr Špaček <[e-mail]>]

On 5/6/25 20:09, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On May 6, 2025, at 09:56, Ted Lemon <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> I think that you're trying to solve two different problems here. The first problem is just generally what can you do to avoid causing a validation failure? The second problem is, how can you actually validate locally served domains?
>>
>> They are both really interesting questions, and I think that it would be very useful to consider how we would solve the problem of validating locally served domain.
>>
>> However, this is not absolve us of the responsibility to make sure that we don't accidentally cause validation failures where they are inappropriate. We already have prior art on this. We know how to solve this problem. RFCs that solve this problem all solve that and exactly the same way.
> 
> ...and that way might not work the way we want, and thus should be defined in RFCs before we make recommendations about them. In specific, we don't have any RFCs that deal with insecure delegation for clients that move around.

This is provably incorrect. 10.in-addr.arpa is an insecure delegation 
which with network-dependent content, and it works for decades. Please 
let's not create more diversions from the actual problem at hand, which 
is the missing insecure delegation. I.e. I fully agree with Ted Lemon.

-- 
Petr Špaček