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

[Russ Housley <[e-mail]>]

Ted:

>> I have a big problem with Section 6 of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03.  If the domain name is to be published in the root zone, then I do not think that the special-use TLD registration is appropriate.  That said, if the requirement for publication in the root zone is removed, I do not have a problem with proceeding with a special-use TLD registration.
> 
> You seem to have missed out on the discussion that we had on this, Russ.   The problem is that we don't have a choice.   Either it is a special-use name, which means literally that, or it is not.   It can't not be a special-use name, because its use is special—that is, different than other names.
> 
> At the same time, it is a name that is resolved using the DNS protocol.   Its special use requires this.   I think we go into that in the document, but to recap, if there is no un-signed delegation, validating resolvers will find any subdomain of the name invalid, and so the special use won't work.
> 
> We could of course require resolvers to special-case this particular domain, but I think you can see that that sort of solution doesn't scale, so I presume you are not suggesting we do this.
> 
> So, with that in mind, can you articulate _why_ you think that the publication in the root zone and the special use registration are together, as you put it, "inappropriate”?

We have a different view of the intended purpose of the special-use TLD registry.  Sadly, the RFC does not include language that resolves this difference.

In my opinion, a special-use TLD MUST NOT be published in the root zone.  If you believe that this TLD needs to be published in the root zone, then the special-use registry is an inappropriate path to getting the domain name assigned.

Russ