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

Ralph Droms <> Tue, 21 March 2017 14:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDBCB12948B for <>; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 07:00:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lQemcARMyFtF for <>; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 07:00:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB9A6129408 for <>; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 07:00:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id y76so135317033qkb.0 for <>; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 07:00:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=bEZUGzT5WIMvLE4Zf1MKCt8XTRdD7OHqrSTFBjEYeY0=; b=e3v5NIsEOycdD+lNMnGBwQHjSvITBLGqfwlVoxrLF8vr/75pri2E1gUs7GeNlQ9q4G JDf/SQcf0w9b+wpALnnbZJLxiv5D6wntDrKe3ZvZABT4wxyDOQJvDH8wYxra6JXcjt7T syMGkYq5eS9Td1clFZ3J8hHWFOSCVvRM2gfif2Zu/uuJXA+ZJ5jjrNpONY1/9b5lnouU fvzQKA8VUmWdzgn92FM8wdM6PVL/hm8L3qRV8FR0z9W9MIiUWTFzfHIPe99C3vpTm8aJ gStf80zSIWJHFtl18+Ip5hz/YbLk8777J0sXB3KijF8LOQd+gMlOYnNkNa8Njguy/VbJ QOFw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=bEZUGzT5WIMvLE4Zf1MKCt8XTRdD7OHqrSTFBjEYeY0=; b=EL4q6k07U7zkZe41McsnZZITsr+kgU8PvDnWVEaVWyUs2TOaln/fMGJKM74VHX2n4B rfUxKC4onmhNIvV6EpDyhGVFnyrN6XsUZX2AdJcqWkKta8RzbTxtVylHxo0OG0p9ax88 O/B+Pn67xqQ+TFa/9QJcyhSe0SvHqQAyESaMkS6S3hXX2iVKuXKImWK2wlktrObkwrXm lIi8LecPiIyPURMtkJX4G8fVkLSiS/cbaiSKOk1s+kxDrthISQoUQfOsbICoDr0o7J4V ToT61F00uu7AIqfl9HBxBb57ngOKPmhlW4+vRfL1LaOYnZALfwg3GlmFz+TXo/o9Ly6M ilzA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H1AM+hY+GBa4geKl2mYEOJMBjwQRFlTrDEQeFqu1DQkLrQb2hH5GKQWbwfpbG/zVA==
X-Received: by with SMTP id o66mr29758276qkf.0.1490104845748; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 07:00:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:18f:801:600:f006:56a3:f121:7c9b? ([2601:18f:801:600:f006:56a3:f121:7c9b]) by with ESMTPSA id h43sm8295624qth.7.2017. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 21 Mar 2017 07:00:45 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
From: Ralph Droms <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 10:00:43 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Andrew Sullivan <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
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 14:00:49 -0000

> On Mar 21, 2017, at 12:22 AM, Andrew Sullivan <> wrote:
> Hi,
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 01:14:25PM -0400, Ralph Droms wrote:
>> Russ - In my opinion, the special-use domain registry is not being
>> used to put the name in the root zone.  The observation is that the
>> special-use definition of this TLD requires both an entry in the
>> special-use domain name registry, and an entry in the root zone
> I am having a hard time making the above two sentences consistent.
> This special-use case requires an entry in the root zone, and so by
> definition the entry into one (the special-use registry) with
> processing rules that require normal DNS processing, combined with the
> request for a provably-insecure delegation, is either incoherent or
> else links the two registries.  I don't know which it is, but I see no
> way it can be other than one of them.

Let me try again...  As I see the process, draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03 defines the protocol behaviors for ".homenet".  draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03 requests an entry in the root zone for .homent and an entry in the special-use names registry.  While those two actions are related, and the entry in the special-use names registry may describe behavior that depends on the entry in the root zone, I think of the request for the entry in the root zone as coming explicitly from draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03 rather than implicitly from the entry in the special-use names registry.

The point I'm trying to make is that making the entry in the special-use names registry is not a back door to an entry in the root zone.  The request for the entry in the root zone has to be explicit; in this case, in draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03.

- Ralph

> Best regards,
> A
> -- 
> Andrew Sullivan
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list