Re: [homenet] review of draft-ietf-homenet-redact and draft-ietf-homenet-dot

[Jari Arkko <[e-mail]>]

>> I would like to add that the issue is not just a process issue;
>> the questions one would have to answer (like how other
>> entities in the Internet should deal with the newly allocated
>> name) went unanswered. Maybe:
> 
> While this is true, it is not why we are doing the redact.   We actually do the enumeration in homenet-dot.   I think changing the text would confuse the issue by leading the reader to believe something that isn't true.

Perhaps, but I wanted to be accurate as to why the original thing
wasn’t satisfactory. Your point about confusing with regards to
the current thing is of course valid. Presumably that could
be addressed by explicitly saying that there’s ongoing work
that intends to not make the same mistakes :-)

>> However, there are first of all some unclear
>> details, but more importantly, I fear that the class of
>> name being requested is wrong. I say this with the
>> understanding that I’m not an DNS expert, but despite
>> efforts I have failed to understand the logic, and I can
>> see some issues in doing it the way that you’re crafting
>> the request.
> 
> You use the word type later on, not class, so my initial reaction to this text was wrong.   To be clear, I assume you are not proposing that we use a different CLASS value.

Right. Sorry. You can tell that I’m not a DNS expert… :)

> 
>> I’m not clear how to implement this MUST NOT. Is there
>> a requirement here that any recursive resolver either
>> knows about the logical boundaries of a home network,
>> or does not forward .homenet queries?
> 
> This is addressed in points 4 and 5 of section 3.   Your objection to the normative language in section 2 makes sense, though.
> 
>> This is fine, but that should probably be ‘… any assumption
>> about the security properties based on the use of this special
>> name.’ (It is not clear to me that there’d be additional security
>> level, could also be reduced security, e.g., if DNSSEC was not
>> locally available.)
> 
> That makes sense.

Ok.

More later, gotta run. Thanks for the quick response!

Jari