Re: [homenet] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-homenet-dot-12: (with COMMENT)

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

El Aug 28, 2017, a les 6:07 PM, Adam Roach <[e-mail]> va escriure:
> Section 4 contains a list that it describes as defining "the behavior of [DNS]
> systems". Item number 7 seems to be something else: I don't know what code or
> configuration would result from this statement. Maybe move this item to section
> 3?

This is the format that RFC 6761 requires us to follow, which is why it's being done this way.   I think the text makes sense if you read it with the RFC 6761 list of criteria in section 5 in mind.   So I don't think it makes sense to move it, although I agree it scans a bit strangely. :)

> With the explanation in section 6:
> 
>   it may be useful for the resolver to identify different
>   homenets on which it has resolved names
> 
> Doesn't this mitigation in the security section require name resolution
> libraries to recognize names that end in ".home.arpa." as special so that it
> can treat them differently?

Section 6 is talking about future work.   If we come up with a way to do this, then it would update this document, changing the normative requirement.