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

[james woodyatt <[e-mail]>]

Hi Terry,

Clarifying questions here...

On Mar 28, 2017, at 12:32, Terry Manderson <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>