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

james woodyatt <> Wed, 29 March 2017 14:48 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B6B4128ACA for <>; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 07:48:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CxkIu_xYhpVy for <>; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 07:48:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B2478128656 for <>; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 07:48:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id b140so232770iof.1 for <>; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 07:48:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=rrFFn/bIW62jfAjjAcLPhkRJ+ExX3JrvspIBkTxvn8I=; b=exch29fQB2YX7GsOBpvH1YXlgzX78chz9qig91NTEd1LK7WGT14/C8Lh8YCj4HMhhE E2HVhM2cmOPhrVIRIgTQ+S1chYtW5tVvmIvp3a7WYrW1d0OHzGhJLh5CfnhUT56Mt1pK Bw2POCkgrut4N45TmmGnFcqDPABAVgEDonunHjFbj5Ca6Akn26ldlnCDtTwFjPOhuXHt 9OT47oqyvt3FhP2xxYEvaghAIaiyCHoOq8qLk4vLgJc/YkIGYoOvgcpBwNZu4n3v/+la qSCV9i6UUTClAkXC0p66J50R29P4agiPw9KmhuLBZoUPbwfSdsrTaBXr1vwOWYUOZYFh oU8g==
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=rrFFn/bIW62jfAjjAcLPhkRJ+ExX3JrvspIBkTxvn8I=; b=L2bXJpxnJN1aALO3ClEdTXFz1CVR8pPfXg0wtGGYhXTDZVavFaJYSs+yPDr9TldSD5 41YxnkJC5RrgI6AuhpB5wgFqD/0rKGZbT+hmSnf73dDlDg3XlpUw6bMvp4BNkb0BuCC7 jEFyWE3XZl7GbHe+l8bwTzNZUQP0gTdi0hX0t4rEi/Z1GdMF1dTSw+7thD4+tFgjHqoa hDg1/LzI/IctJBe/eDVgdgfkiQ2SWoPAv6FBTf+CuOkFPNw+iUzPTbg3j3IwaWShenv8 orrAFW5Vy7IGl8H0YbgYxgOGlBjZfWbzZuDs425s0bj9HjjbsrV90BioWdVq6yS3kMqE xa6Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H3spcJIPz8tGblyUqwxbX8+bEEwEFb02xK/8FL7TN25yTBc4zG48W79pBtr3htlzfGY
X-Received: by with SMTP id c70mr1189811ioc.198.1490798924913; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 07:48:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [2001:67c:370:1998:4502:a80:e0ee:d59e]) by with ESMTPSA id v185sm3413279itf.11.2017. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 29 Mar 2017 07:48:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: james woodyatt <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_4AA293F1-D937-44F5-BA15-556A4F7ED997"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 09:48:43 -0500
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: HOMENET <>, "" <>
To: Terry Manderson <>
References: <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
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 14:48:48 -0000

Hi Terry,

Clarifying questions here...

On Mar 28, 2017, at 12:32, Terry Manderson <> 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 < <>>