IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 24 March 2017 19:04 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2361312956A for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 12:04:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 5wzl-JjHWn7F for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 12:04:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0CEF51296D7 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 12:04:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FB6F2009E; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 15:28:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C4C3636E0; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 15:04:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>
cc: HOMENET <homenet@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <9768C77F-1993-4012-83B5-A077DF0C53A5@gmail.com>
References: <1E14B142-680B-4E30-809B-68E03EB6E326@gmail.com> <61FD3EE3-3043-4AB1-9823-6A9D61B1438C@vigilsec.com> <BE2A3845-D8AA-433A-9F00-1056ECFD335F@fugue.com> <21C8F856-FE3F-42A6-A8ED-888D0797B68B@vigilsec.com> <60C85486-E351-4C42-ADEB-FCBB56F4EA27@fugue.com> <AB11455F-7E43-4CB3-9F13-DB6A09F739EB@vigilsec.com> <CEC8CC6A-861A-471C-B7FA-4BB05C81CCF0@gmail.com> <F7AA49EF-2708-4948-9B60-6660DA6BC841@vigilsec.com> <734EC35A-4B1F-43EB-BE37-C34CA46BDA26@fugue.com> <203D2BEA-1008-48A0-9CE2-1FD621C6117F@shinkuro.com> <3134EDC2-FB00-41EA-8338-6E6B196137F1@fugue.com> <572B4EBA-F37F-4E92-A252-44BAF5DE7FF5@shinkuro.com> <95935A30-9B77-4B7A-A0CE-4409134B6163@fugue.com> <B5D3DF5D-BE54-4941-AAC1-8D99A16EADE8@gmail.com> <9768C77F-1993-4012-83B5-A077DF0C53A5@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 15:04:47 -0400
Message-ID: <23193.1490382287@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/IQW-gRT7WC8DxanJ586ICpswAHo>
Subject: Re: [homenet] [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03
X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Homenet WG mailing list <homenet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/homenet/>
List-Post: <mailto:homenet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 19:04:50 -0000

Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
    >> Ted - has the operation of .homenet, as described in
    >> draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03, been demonstrated?

    > Specifically, has the ability to validate queries to .homenet been
    > demonstrated with a simulated root zone including the entry for
    > .homenet, properly configured recursive resolvers and properly
    > configured clients (having received a list of the local recursive
    > resolvers through DHCP or ND)?

Are you asking this is in the context of a recursive resolver that speaks
homenet (mDNS, etc.), or one that has no knowledge of .homenet.?

I note in the IANA considerations that the root will have an insecure
delegation to a blackhole server.  So I think the simulation above would
need to do that as well.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email