It's pretty clear that it needs to be added. I will do so. On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 5:00 PM, Suzanne Woolf <suzworldw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > For those of you who were in the HOMENET WG meeting yesterday, you probably > noticed a controversy that’s developed around the proposed .homenet special > use name as the default for homenet naming: the working group is considering, > among other things, whether its special use name needs an unsecure delegation > in the parent zone in order to prevent DNSSEC failures. > > If HOMENET is attempting to standardize a single-label special use name (a > “TLD”), which is their current plan, this would mean asking IANA for such an > unsecure delegation in the root, which may pose process problems. If they > want a special use name further down the tree, such as one under .arpa, the > unsecure delegation from the parent may still be required, but shouldn’t > raise the same process questions. > > I’m hereby asking the editors of the DNSOP special use names problem > statement document to review that discussion and determine whether it needs > to be added to the problem statement. > > It seems to me that it would be very helpful if the problem statement could > describe how DNSSEC is relevant to handling of special use names (including > those that use DNS resolution protocol but don’t have global scope, or those > that aren’t intended to resolve with DNS at all) and under what conditions it > can be a problem. > > > thanks, > Suzanne > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
