Re: [homenet] RFC 7788-bis

Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk> Fri, 17 June 2016 08:37 UTC

Return-Path: <ray@bellis.me.uk>
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 6C20C12B031 for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Jun 2016 01:37:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] 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 OS_dTA-Rml-4 for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Jun 2016 01:37:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hydrogen.portfast.net (hydrogen.portfast.net [188.246.200.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ABB9112D127 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Jun 2016 01:37:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [46.227.151.81] (port=58245 helo=rays-mbp.local) by hydrogen.portfast.net ([188.246.200.2]:465) with esmtpsa (fixed_plain:ray@bellis.me.uk) (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) id 1bDpGy-0004kN-Jt (Exim 4.72) for homenet@ietf.org (return-path <ray@bellis.me.uk>); Fri, 17 Jun 2016 09:37:04 +0100
To: homenet@ietf.org
References: <76ed7404-35ff-9cc8-262b-d5785595465c@isc.org> <20160617010044.GA22195@mx2.yitter.info>
From: Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk>
Message-ID: <4e794ce6-2605-a0d2-c0e7-fe44bb149794@bellis.me.uk>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 09:37:06 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20160617010044.GA22195@mx2.yitter.info>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/cdAXoMnLWtQWkHkc1rgB2PwRd5g>
Subject: Re: [homenet] RFC 7788-bis
X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 17 Jun 2016 08:37:08 -0000


On 17/06/2016 02:00, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

> … it is not.  We know both that (1) it is already in use in the wild
> in undetermined ways and (2) that some people have spent a bunch of
> money attempting to get it delegated to them in the global DNS.  We
> should not, IMO, even for a moment consider using a name with
> well-known conflicting properties.

<nohat>

Whilst there may be "undermined" ways it's being used, it's clear that
most of the ways it's used are just because some vendors and sites
decided to use that for their default *site local* domain which makes it
completely consistent with what we need.

I therefore completely disagree on point #1 - officially allocating
.home for this purpose and having it "sunk" by default on internet
facing recursive resolvers would IMHO actually *help* with the traffic
hitting the root and reduce leakage of it.

As for #2, yeah, that's hard, but it seems ICANN won't do anything about
".home" because of #1 anyway, but they seemed stalled on outright
rejecting it and have said (AFAICR) that an RFC 6761 registration would
allow them to reject (and refund) those applications.

Ray