Ted - thanks for posting a clear summary of the situation for WG discussion and consensus. Two questions in line…
> On Dec 12, 2016, at 10:46 AM, Ted Lemon <mel...@fugue.com> wrote: > > One thing that I think the working group should be aware of, although I don't > know if this awareness will change anything, is that the situation with the > .homenet allocation is less simple than we would prefer: it's not really > simply a matter of adding .homenet to the special use domain names registry. > The reason is that we need DNS resolution to work properly for domains under > .homenet, and this has to work even if a host is doing DNSSEC validation. > > At present, if you were to configure a homenet router with .home or .homenet > as the local domain, this would work perfectly nicely until you turned on > DNSSEC validation, at which point all the names in either hierarchy would > disappear. The reason for this is that the root zone provides proof of > nonexistence for nonexistent names in that zone. > > It is possible to address this problem by requesting ICANN to put an insecure > delegation in the root zone. The problem is that from a process > perspective, this is a _lot_ more heavyweight than doing a special-use domain > name allocation, and has no guarantee of success. This wasn't such an issue > for .onion when we did it, because .onion _wants_ a secure denial of > existence--we _never_ want a .onion query to actually happen if the name has > been handed to a resolver that doesn't understand .onion explicitly. This > is not true for .homenet. > > There are two approaches we can take to this. One is to proceed--ask ICANN > to do the delegation and see what happens. The other is to take the more > expedient, less satisfying approach: use .home.arpa instead of .homenet. > I'm not in love with this as an end solution, but it has the advantage that > the IAB controls .arpa, and so we can get an unsecure delegation right away > assuming the IAB agrees. I see no reason to think they would not. It's a > bit more typing, and there is the problem that the fourth google result for > arpa is "Advanced Research Projects Agency. But it would work, and quickly, > and would keep the whole process in the family. > > The other alternative is to continue with the original plan: do the > special-use names registry allocation, and send a liason to ICANN asking them > to do the unsecure delegation. The downside to this approach is that we > won't know whether the outcome will be success or failure for a long time, > possibly several years. And the outcome could very well be failure. The > upside is that we get the name we all want; the downside is that we are a > long way down the road with no win. So, now I’m a little confused by the alternatives; for clarity, does the paragraph that begins “The other alternative” refer back to the “ask ICANN to do the delegation” approach? > > I should point out that whichever way we go, we already have solved the > immediate problem: we have a name that HNCP can use, the potential liability > for IETF is dealt with, and our prototypes can be made to work. Are you referring to “.home”, “.homenet”, “.home.arpa” or some other name to use as the HNCP default? - Ralph > So I am personally okay with either decision. Our AD, Terry, may have more > of a sense of what ICANN will do (but to some extent he really can't know, > because it's up to committees within ICANN to actually make this decision). > I'm mentioning this now not to derail the process, but simply to make it > really clear what our expectations should be. The reason that this didn't > come up in Seoul is that it didn't actually click for me that we had a > serious problem until several of us were chatting on the way out of the room, > after the working group had already decided to proceed. > > On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 9:02 AM, Ray Bellis <r...@bellis.me.uk > <mailto:r...@bellis.me.uk>> wrote: > > > On 21/11/2016 13:25, Ralph Droms wrote: > > (Updated comments on draft-ietf-homenet-dot originally posted prior to the > > WG last call) > > Thanks Ralph. > > I'd like to remind the WG that the LC is due to run until Friday > December 16th, so please anyone else with comments please get them in. > > Ray > > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > homenet@ietf.org <mailto:homenet@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet> > > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > homenet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
