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

Steve Crocker <> Tue, 21 March 2017 01:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93B7B1316B4 for <>; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 18:37:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.993
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.993 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.796, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8MHeRfJrK_XC for <>; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 18:37:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 69EF11316B0 for <>; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 18:37:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A9A8FE019B; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 01:37:15 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-2D336C07-3597-42F5-BCC1-0BC8F8F6037A
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Steve Crocker <>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (14C92)
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 21:37:14 -0400
Cc: Brian Dickson <>, " WG" <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <>
To: Ted Lemon <>
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: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 01:37:18 -0000

Before addressing the questions you've asked, let me about the rest of the picture.  How do names get assigned within the local homenet domain?


Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 20, 2017, at 9:25 PM, Ted Lemon <> wrote:
> I'm curious what Russ and Steve think about this as an alternative.   It seems a bit byzantine to me, but I can't say that I object to it on principal.   It does create a lot of extra work for ICANN, though, and it would be a bit more brittle than just doing an unsigned delegation: we now have to have some way to get current versions of these signatures into the homenet resolver.
> Further comments inline.
>> On Mar 20, 2017, at 6:08 PM, Brian Dickson <> wrote:
>> What is required for the above, is generation of DNSSEC records including RRSIG(NS), NSEC, and RRSIG(NSEC), for "homenet" TLD.
> Yes.
>> Since the queries are never meant to reach the root servers, the presence or absence of "homenet" in the root is mostly moot.
> Sure.
>> The only technical requirement is that suitable DNSSEC records be generated, and that the special-purpose homenet DNS resolvers are able to have up-to-date copies of these DNSSEC records.
> Sure.
>> As a technical matter, this does not require publishing these records in the root zone, although that would be one way of achieving the necessary requirement.
> True.
>> Perhaps the homenet WG folks could talk to the ICANN folks about ways of accomplishing the above, without the need for publishing the unsigned delegation in the root zone?
> Strictly speaking I think this is something the IESG would have to do.  I don't object to this as a solution, but operationally I think it's a lot more work.   It may be that it's worth doing it, since it might be applicable to other special-use name allocations.
>> The benefit of not publishing, is that any queries that do hit the root servers, would get a signed NXDOMAIN, which IMHO is a more correct response.
> Yes.   I'm not sure that's enough to justify the extra work.
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list