Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

[Paul Wouters <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, 23 Mar 2017, Suzanne Woolf wrote:

> 1. The protocol is sufficiently functional for deployment without working capability for DNSSEC validation.

No, what was said was there wasn't very much dnssec validating stubs out
there to cause visible problems at this moment.

> 2. Having a single-label name is more important for the functioning of the protocol than having DNSSEC validation work.

The phrase "more important" is pretty meaningless. And as was indicated,
it is all based on the levels of DNSSEC deployment on stubs, which could
change dramatically if one phone vender would suddently enable
validation or default to DNS-over-TLS to 8.8.8.8.

I would also want to add that dnsop (including myself!) pretty much
failed the homenet WG. We were asked to review docs before RFC-7788
got published in April 2016. Then we raised the alarm about .home
and I remember .homenet being a very early alternative, maybe even
suggested by dnsops. And now a year later dnsops is back to telling
homenet they cannot use this string either. I don't think they deserve
another one or two years waiting time to talk about homenet.arpa or
homenet.ietf.

I would again like to suggest that Special Use Names is moved to be
discussed outside dnsops.

Paul