Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

On 19 March 2017 at 21:44, Suzanne Woolf wrote: > This document is the product of the homenet WG, which has asked the IESG > to approve it for publication, so our comments are strictly advisory to the > IESG. There was some discussion of the draft on this list shortly after it > appeared, in Nove

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 02:00:08AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote: > > What is the point of having a MoU that names may need to be assigned > in the root namespace if there cannot be a entry added to the root > namespace if there is a technical need to it? You are conflating "root namespace" and "root

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

Hi, > On 21 Mar 2017, at 18:36, Ralph Droms wrote: > > >> On Mar 21, 2017, at 2:34 PM, Tim Chown wrote: >> >>> On 21 Mar 2017, at 17:30, Suzanne Woolf wrote: >>> >>> Jim, >>> >>> In the interests of preserving a distinction here that I believe is >>> important: >>> On Mar 21, 2017,

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

> On Mar 21, 2017, at 2:34 PM, Tim Chown wrote: > >> On 21 Mar 2017, at 17:30, Suzanne Woolf wrote: >> >> Jim, >> >> In the interests of preserving a distinction here that I believe is >> important: >> >>> On Mar 21, 2017, at 10:01 AM, Jim Reid wrote: >>> >>> On 21 Mar 2017, at 13:

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

On 21/03/2017 10:30, Suzanne Woolf wrote: > Is there any evidence connecting the use of the string “.home” in > queries to the DNS with any particular protocol, type of equipment, > network configuration, or software? It's known to be the default domain configured in 5+ million BT home gateway

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

> On 21 Mar 2017, at 17:30, Suzanne Woolf wrote: > > Jim, > > In the interests of preserving a distinction here that I believe is > important: > >> On Mar 21, 2017, at 10:01 AM, Jim Reid wrote: >> >> >>> On 21 Mar 2017, at 13:54, Paul Wouters wrote: >>> >>> Suggesting we postpone .homene

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

Jim, In the interests of preserving a distinction here that I believe is important: > On Mar 21, 2017, at 10:01 AM, Jim Reid wrote: > > >> On 21 Mar 2017, at 13:54, Paul Wouters wrote: >> >> Suggesting we postpone .homenet while figuring out a new IETF/ICANN >> process, something that can t

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

On Mar 21, 2017, at 11:11 AM, Jim Reid wrote: > That doesn't mean their decision was the right one. In retrospect, the > stand-off in this WG and between the IETF and ICANN about "special" TLDs (for > some definition of special) suggests they made a poor choice. What stand-off? ___

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

> On 21 Mar 2017, at 15:00, Mark Andrews wrote: > > The homenet working group decided that the root was a more appropriae place > than > arpa. That doesn't mean their decision was the right one. In retrospect, the stand-off in this WG and between the IETF and ICANN about "special" TLDs (for

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

What is the point of having a MoU that names may need to be assigned in the root namespace if there cannot be a entry added to the root namespace if there is a technical need to it? .onion names were never supposed to be looked up using the DNS protocol so there is no need to the entries to exist

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

> On Mar 21, 2017, at 10:12 AM, Paul Wouters wrote: > > On Tue, 21 Mar 2017, Ralph Droms wrote: > >> If draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03 specified homenet.arpa, the IETF could assign >> as many different names as wanted for different scoping scenarios, without >> interacting with ICANN for each assi

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

Jim Reid writes: > > > > On 21 Mar 2017, at 14:09, Paul Wouters wrote: > > > > Can we tell from the queries or a timeline of query quantity if this > > is generic .home pollution that predates the homenet protocol suite, > > or actually the result the homenet protocol suite being deplo

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

Paul, I’d like to make sure I understand your comment, as I’m not completely sure it addresses mine. As I read your response, you’re willing to forgo a root zone entry, and the DNSSEC behavior the WG has reached consensus it wants, in order to have an entry in the special use name registry for

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

> On 21 Mar 2017, at 14:09, Paul Wouters wrote: > > Can we tell from the queries or a timeline of query quantity if this > is generic .home pollution that predates the homenet protocol suite, > or actually the result the homenet protocol suite being deployed? What's this "we"? :-) The short an

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

> On Mar 21, 2017, at 10:12 AM, Paul Wouters wrote: > >> On Tue, 21 Mar 2017, Ralph Droms wrote: >> >> If draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03 specified homenet.arpa, the IETF could assign >> as many different names as wanted for different scoping scenarios, without >> interacting with ICANN for each a

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

On Tue, 21 Mar 2017, Ralph Droms wrote: If draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03 specified homenet.arpa, the IETF could assign as many different names as wanted for different scoping scenarios, without interacting with ICANN for each assignment. arpa is a loaded name for some non-US citizens. localnet.

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

On Tue, 21 Mar 2017, Jim Reid wrote: On 21 Mar 2017, at 13:54, Paul Wouters wrote: Suggesting we postpone .homenet while figuring out a new IETF/ICANN process, something that can take years, would basically doom this rename and install .home as the defacto standard. At the risk of pouring pe

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

> On Mar 21, 2017, at 10:05 AM, Philip Homburg > wrote: > >> This .home / .homenet issue has already been going on for a very >> long time. The longer we wait with resolving this issue, the worse >> the deployment situation will be of software mixing .home vs >>> homenet. > > Do we really expe

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

> This .home / .homenet issue has already been going on for a very > long time. The longer we wait with resolving this issue, the worse > the deployment situation will be of software mixing .home vs > >homenet. Do we really expect homenet to be only ever used in a 'home'? It seems to me that homen

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

> On 21 Mar 2017, at 13:54, Paul Wouters wrote: > > Suggesting we postpone .homenet while figuring out a new IETF/ICANN > process, something that can take years, would basically doom this rename > and install .home as the defacto standard. At the risk of pouring petrol on the fire, .home *is* t

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

> On Mar 21, 2017, at 12:22 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > > Hi, > > On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 01:14:25PM -0400, Ralph Droms wrote: > >> Russ - In my opinion, the special-use domain registry is not being >> used to put the name in the root zone. The observation is that the >> special-use definiti

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

On Tue, 21 Mar 2017, Suzanne Woolf wrote: [also speaking as individual only] I see no justification in draft-ietf-homenet-dot for a single-label name, except an implicit suggestion in Sec. 2 para. 2 that the specific string was chosen to be memorable in cases where homenet names are exposed t

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

Ted - has the operation of .homenet, as described in draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03, been demonstrated? - Ralph ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

> FWIW, when adding DANE support to Postfix, it was plainly obvious > that DNSSEC validation belongs in the local resolver, and Postfix > just needs to trust its "AD" bit. The only thing missing from the > traditional libresolv API is some way for the application to specify > the resolver address

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

Hi, No hats, except DNS/names geek who has spent a lot of time talking with policy people about why and how the root zone is (and isn’t) special. > On Mar 20, 2017, at 3:38 PM, Russ Housley wrote: > > Ted: > >> There are other processes for adding names to the root zone. In my opinion, >> u

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

In message , Brian Dickso n writes: > --===2842493287922721238== > Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c0685ce434e95054b30c544 > > --94eb2c0685ce434e95054b30c544 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > > Hi, > > The

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

In message <2761653.If01A9zrq2@linux-hs2j>, Paul Vixie writes: > On Monday, March 20, 2017 5:08:01 PM GMT Russ Housley wrote: > > There are other processes for adding names to the root zone. In my opinion, > > using the special-use TLD registry as a means of putting a name, even one > > that has

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

In message <61fd3ee3-3043-4ab1-9823-6a9d61b14...@vigilsec.com>, Russ Housley wr ites: > I have a big problem with Section 6 of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03. If the > domain name is to be published in the root zone, then I do not think that > the special-use TLD registration is appropriate. That sa

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

Paul Vixie wrote: > > Viktor Dukhovni wrote: >> ... >> >> What's attractive here, is that real resolvers (local to the same >> device) already have the requisite feature-set, and there's no need >> to augment stub resolvers with features already handled by local >> recursive resolvers. If a dev

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > ... > > What's attractive here, is that real resolvers (local to the same > device) already have the requisite feature-set, and there's no need > to augment stub resolvers with features already handled by local > recursive resolvers. If a device is too dumb to run a sep

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

Hi, On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 01:14:25PM -0400, Ralph Droms wrote: > Russ - In my opinion, the special-use domain registry is not being > used to put the name in the root zone. The observation is that the > special-use definition of this TLD requires both an entry in the > special-use domain name

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

On Mon, 20 Mar 2017, Andrew Sullivan wrote: On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 06:19:45PM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote: I am assuming that if stubs are validating, then they must also support excluding special queries from validation, such as mDNS, .onion and .homenet. What possible basis do you have for t

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

On Mar 20, 2017, at 10:15 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > When I say "local", I don't mean on a nearby node on the local > network, I mean the loopback interface, i.e. a process on the same > device. That would qualify as a stub resolver in the sense that we are talking about here: a resolver that

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 09:06:40PM -0400, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Mar 20, 2017, at 8:48 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > > FWIW, when adding DANE support to Postfix, > > The homenet use case is completely different. Here we are talking about > devices that routinely roam among operational domains wi

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 6:54 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Mar 20, 2017, at 9:50 PM, Brian Dickson > wrote: > > This would require an update every time the KSK is rolled, or whenever the > RRSIG needs to be refreshed. 68 years is an inconvenient interval, so maybe > 50 or 20 years? This is still a l

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

On Mar 20, 2017, at 9:50 PM, Brian Dickson wrote: > This would require an update every time the KSK is rolled, or whenever the > RRSIG needs to be refreshed. 68 years is an inconvenient interval, so maybe > 50 or 20 years? This is still a lot better than 1 week or 1 month. Isn't there some inc

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

Just to follow through on my thought(s) on this... (thought in-line below). On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 6:25 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > I'm curious what Russ and Steve think about this as an alternative. It > seems a bit byzantine to me, but I can't say that I object to it on > principal. It does cr

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

On Mar 20, 2017, at 9:37 PM, Steve Crocker wrote: > Before addressing the questions you've asked, let me about the rest of the > picture. How do names get assigned within the local homenet domain? Using either hybrid dnssd, or else stateful dnssd. So, https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tldm-s

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

Before addressing the questions you've asked, let me about the rest of the picture. How do names get assigned within the local homenet domain? Steve Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 20, 2017, at 9:25 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > > I'm curious what Russ and Steve think about this as an alternative. I

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

I'm curious what Russ and Steve think about this as an alternative. It seems a bit byzantine to me, but I can't say that I object to it on principal. It does create a lot of extra work for ICANN, though, and it would be a bit more brittle than just doing an unsigned delegation: we now have t

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 06:19:45PM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote: > I am assuming that if stubs are validating, then they must also support > excluding special queries from validation, such as mDNS, .onion and > .homenet. > What possible basis do you have for this? This is in effect a requirement th

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

On Mar 20, 2017, at 8:48 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > FWIW, when adding DANE support to Postfix, Viktor, forgive me, but this is such a completely different use case than what we are talking about. In this case, the Postfix mailer and the recursive validating resolver are both operated by the

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 05:44:27PM -0400, Steve Crocker wrote: > > You should bear in mind that homenet is assuming the Internet of maybe > > five years from now, more so than the Internet of now, although obviously > > we'd like to get done sooner than that. So you should assume that stub > > r

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

On Mar 20, 2017, at 6:19 PM, Paul Wouters wrote: > I am assuming that if stubs are validating, then they must also support > excluding special queries from validation, such as mDNS, .onion and > .homenet. I don't think this is a reasonable assumption. We don't, for example, assume that all res

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

On Mar 20, 2017, at 5:44 PM, Steve Crocker wrote: > If you assume the local environment is going to get complicated and that > signing of the local domain will become important in order to guard against > hijacking by errant devices inside the perimeter, it looks to me there will > have to be a

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

On Mon, 20 Mar 2017, Steve Crocker wrote: If you assume the local environment is going to get complicated and that signing of the local domain will become important in order to guard against hijacking by errant devices inside the perimeter, it looks to me there will have to be a local trust a

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

> Hi, > The INT Area Director who oversees the homenet WG, Terry Manderson, has > asked DNSOP participants to review > https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03.txt, "Special Use Top > Level Domain '.homenet’”, with the following aspects in mind: > 1) in terms of RFC6761 > 2) in terms of th

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

Thanks for the quick response. > On Mar 20, 2017, at 5:14 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > > On Mar 20, 2017, at 4:57 PM, Steve Crocker wrote: >> First, neither my opinion as an individual nor my opinion as an official of >> ICANN should be considered definitive, normative or otherwise compelling >> ex

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

On Mar 20, 2017, at 4:57 PM, Steve Crocker wrote: > First, neither my opinion as an individual nor my opinion as an official of > ICANN should be considered definitive, normative or otherwise compelling > except and unless the substance of what I say makes sense I was being facetious, in case i

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

Ted, et al, I’ve been watching this dialog and staying silent, but since I’m referenced and quoted directly, let me offer some points. First, neither my opinion as an individual nor my opinion as an official of ICANN should be considered definitive, normative or otherwise compelling except and

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

On Mar 20, 2017, at 3:44 PM, Russ Housley wrote: > This document does not describe a collaborative approach. The document specifies what the working group needs to have happen in order for the specification to work. How the collaboration happens is out of scope for the homenet working group.

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

Ralph: We have a different view of the intended purpose of the special-use TLD registry. Sadly, the RFC does not include language that resolves this difference. >>> >>> I understand that we have different views. However, I am asking you >>> specifically to articulate _your_ v

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

On Monday, March 20, 2017 5:08:01 PM GMT Russ Housley wrote: > There are other processes for adding names to the root zone. In my opinion, > using the special-use TLD registry as a means of putting a name, even one > that has a different scope and use case, is an end run around that process. as m

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

On Mar 20, 2017, at 1:08 PM, Russ Housley wrote: > There are other processes for adding names to the root zone. In my opinion, > using the special-use TLD registry as a means of putting a name, even one > that has a different scope and use case, is an end run around that process. So it seems t

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

> On Mar 20, 2017, at 1:08 PM, Russ Housley wrote: > > >> >>> We have a different view of the intended purpose of the special-use TLD >>> registry. Sadly, the RFC does not include language that resolves this >>> difference. >> >> I understand that we have different views. However, I am a

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

> >> We have a different view of the intended purpose of the special-use TLD >> registry. Sadly, the RFC does not include language that resolves this >> difference. > > I understand that we have different views. However, I am asking you > specifically to articulate _your_ view. > > You ha

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

On Mar 20, 2017, at 12:47 PM, Russ Housley wrote: > We have a different view of the intended purpose of the special-use TLD > registry. Sadly, the RFC does not include language that resolves this > difference. I understand that we have different views. However, I am asking you specifically

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

> On 20 Mar 2017, at 04:06, George Michaelson wrote: > > Where's the measurement of existing use? I'll be happy to plough through the 2016 DITL dataset and count TLD strings of interest. What ones would the WG like me to count? ___ DNSOP mailing lis

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

Ted: >> I have a big problem with Section 6 of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03. If the >> domain name is to be published in the root zone, then I do not think that >> the special-use TLD registration is appropriate. That said, if the >> requirement for publication in the root zone is removed, I do

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

On Mar 20, 2017, at 11:43 AM, Russ Housley wrote: > I have a big problem with Section 6 of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03. If the > domain name is to be published in the root zone, then I do not think that the > special-use TLD registration is appropriate. That said, if the requirement > for publi

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

I have a big problem with Section 6 of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03. If the domain name is to be published in the root zone, then I do not think that the special-use TLD registration is appropriate. That said, if the requirement for publication in the root zone is removed, I do not have a problem

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

Where's the measurement of existing use? Do we understand to what extent this label is already in use, and potentially has operational issues? -G On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On 19 Mar 2017, at 18:44, Suzanne Woolf wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> The INT Area Director who overs

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

On 19 Mar 2017, at 18:44, Suzanne Woolf wrote: Hi, The INT Area Director who oversees the homenet WG, Terry Manderson, has asked DNSOP participants to review https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03.txt , "Special Use Top Level

[DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

Hi, The INT Area Director who oversees the homenet WG, Terry Manderson, has asked DNSOP participants to review https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03.txt , "Special Use Top Level Domain '.homenet’”, with the following aspects in