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

Steve Crocker <steve@shinkuro.com> Tue, 21 March 2017 01:37 UTC

Return-Path: <steve@shinkuro.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93B7B1316B4 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 18:37:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.993
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8MHeRfJrK_XC for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 18:37:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp01.icann.org (smtp01.icann.org [192.0.46.81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 69EF11316B0 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 18:37:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.0.9] (c-69-140-156-120.hsd1.md.comcast.net [69.140.156.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: steve.crocker@smtp01.icann.org) by smtp01.icann.org (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 <steve@shinkuro.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (14C92)
In-Reply-To: <441D6008-B1B3-46D4-87C0-1BA8032B50DB@fugue.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 21:37:14 -0400
Cc: Brian Dickson <brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com>, "dnsop@ietf.org WG" <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <5EBE79DC-86F8-4E63-8DEB-9F8D9690FCD4@shinkuro.com>
References: <CAH1iCioEAfgS-Efj1OYsL1vG4STnwod=ARrtEKWsHYMCzRdq-Q@mail.gmail.com> <441D6008-B1B3-46D4-87C0-1BA8032B50DB@fugue.com>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/gJtUGSNpdPAtWeTgTR_-6KKyho8>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=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?

Steve

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 20, 2017, at 9:25 PM, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> 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 <brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com> 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
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop