Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: [homenet] WGLC on "redact" and "homenet-dot"

["John Levine" <[e-mail]>]

>But it's worse than that -- if your client software does DNSSEC
>validation it needs to understand that homenet is a special case and
>it's OK not to validate.  This brings us to one of the knottiest parts
>of special use names, which is that they're all handled differently.
>For .onion, it's generally handled in a SOCKS proxy in the
>application, for .local it's handled by mDNS, and for .localhost it's
>special cased in the stub client library.  (There are of course other
>ways one could do it, e.g., a .onion proxy on a LAN could intercept
>AAAA lookups, and return link-local addresses it serves.)

Forgot to mention: homenet is a fourth model, special cased in the
cache, which is an occasional but I think infrequent alternate
implementation for .localhost.  There's implicitly a fifth for
.example, .test, and .invalid which are expected to get a normal
NXDOMAIN.  

I expect when the next 6761 candidate comes along, it'll be handled in
yet another grotty way.

But still:

>So having said all this, I agree with Steve that an unsigned delegation
>is a bad idea, not because all unsigned delegations are necessarily
>bad, but because this one wouldn't solve enough problems to be worth
>the ugly and ambiguous precedent it'd set.

R's,
John