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

[Adam Roach <[e-mail]>]

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-homenet-dot-12: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-homenet-dot/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

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?

I'm having a hard time reconciling the normative requirement in section 4:

       Name resolution APIs and libraries MUST NOT recognize names that
       end in '.home.arpa.' as special and MUST NOT treat them
       differently.

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?