Re: [homenet] WGLC on "redact" and "homenet-dot"

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

.alt may not need an insecure delegation.   It depends on whether anything
under .alt is meant to be resolved using DNS.

On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 9:20 AM, Ralph Droms <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> > On Dec 12, 2016, at 5:14 PM, Ted Lemon <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > On Dec 12, 2016, at 4:56 PM, james woodyatt <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >> I would strongly prefer that we avoid the risks above by using a
> special-purpose subdomain of a gTLD owned by IETF. I don’t really care
> which gTLD we use, and if “arpa” is really the only reasonable choice, then
> so be it. However, I can imagine a world where the Working Group decides
> that “arpa” is unacceptable for whatever reason and decides that it’s
> better to wait until IETF has another domain with a better name. And I’m
> not ready to tell them I think that would be a very bad idea.
> >
> > Remember that if we allocated some subdomain like .arpa, we would face a
> different procedural problem with ICANN that would almost certainly take a
> similar amount of time to resolve.
>
> Ted - I agree that a new SUDN (.alt? draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-06) would
> face procedural issues, although not (in my opinion) with ICANN.  We have
> .arpa as a precedent and designating .alt as an SUDN is strictly an IETF
> matter ... assuming appropriate notification to and consultation with
> ICANN.  The point is that we have the procedure with ICANN in place,
> whereas an insecure delegation for .homenet has no such process.
>
> One of the issues that (again, strictly my opinion) that has held up
> draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-06 is the lack of a real use case as motivation
> for progressing a designation of .alt.  Perhaps now, with a name for
> homenet under .alt, we have both a use case and a generalized solution to
> motivate designation of .alt
>
> - Ralph
>
> >
> > From a process perspective, trying to get ICANN to do an insecure
> delegation for .homenet is actually a worthwhile thing to do; the challenge
> is that it introduces some substantial potential for delay and
> uncertainty.   So does your non-.arpa TLD idea, so from our perspective
> there is no difference, whether or not there may be some difference for the
> IETF as a whole.   We will almost certainly be visiting that problem space
> in the future.
> >
> > That said, if expedient is what the WG wants, .arpa is what’s
> expedient.   As I say, I am not leaning strongly in either direction.   I
> think that a strong argument for one choice or the other would either have
> to do with .homenet being technically better for some reason, or with the
> delay being unacceptable.   Right now I don’t think we’re under that kind
> of time pressure, which is why I’m not more exercised about the possibility
> of a long delay in getting .homenet delegated.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > homenet mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
>
>