Is there any way this discussion could be moved to homenet, which is where the use case originates and the WG last call is taking place?
- Ralph > On Dec 14, 2016, at 12:21 PM, Steve Crocker <st...@shinkuro.com> wrote: > > If it doesn’t have a globally unique meaning, it doesn’t make sense to query > the root for an answer. > > What problem is trying to be solved? I suspect whatever the problem actually > is, the answer will be something other than adding an unsecured delegation to > the root zone. > > Steve > > > > >> On Dec 14, 2016, at 12:07 PM, Ted Lemon <mel...@fugue.com> wrote: >> >> I hope it was obvious that I was pretty confident that you actually had a >> reason. :) >> >> The issue what what you are saying is that sometimes it is technically >> correct for a name to not be validatable. The reason we want an unsecured >> delegation for .homenet is that .homenet can't be validated using the root >> trust anchor, because the name is has no globally unique meaning. So the >> reason that you've given doesn't apply to this case, although I completely >> agree with your reason as it applies to the case of names that are globally >> unique. >> >> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 11:59 AM, Steve Crocker <st...@shinkuro.com> wrote: >> The latter. All DNS answers at all levels should be signed to assure the >> querier of the integrity of the answer. This has been the goal and best >> practice for a very long time. For example, it was the explicit objective >> of the quote substantial DNSSEC effort funded by the US Dept of Homeland >> Security starting in 2004. >> >> Within ICANN, in 2009 we made it a formal requirement of all new gTLDs must >> be signed. The ccTLDs are not subject to ICANN rules but they have been >> gradually moving toward signed status. Most of the major ccTLDs are signed >> and many of the others are too. Detailed maps are created every week by >> ISOC. >> >> I will also try to contribute to the homenet mailing list. >> >> Steve >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Dec 14, 2016, at 11:36 AM, Ted Lemon <mel...@fugue.com> wrote: >> >>> Is this a matter of religious conviction, or is there some issue with >>> unsecured delegations in the root that you are assuming is so obvious that >>> you don't need to tell us about it? :) >>> >>> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Steve Crocker <st...@shinkuro.com> wrote: >>> I am strongly opposed to unsecured delegations in the root zone. No matter >>> what the problem is, an unsecured delegation is not the answer. >>> >>> Steve >>> >>>> On Dec 14, 2016, at 11:11 AM, Suzanne Woolf <suzworldw...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> DNSOP participants who are interested in the special use names problem >>>> might want to review draft-ietf-homenet-redact >>>> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-homenet-redact/) and >>>> draft-ietf-homenet-dot >>>> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-homenet-dot/) for the WGLC on >>>> them in the HOMENET wg. >>>> >>>> WGLC comments should go to the WG list, home...@ietf.org. >>>> >>>> If you do, it will also be helpful to look at RFC 7788, which specifies >>>> the Home Networking Control Protocol for homenets. >>>> >>>> The redact draft is intended to remove the inadvertent reservation of >>>> “.home” as the default namespace for homenets in RFC 7788. >>>> >>>> The homenet-dot draft is intended to provide a request under RFC 6761 for >>>> “.homenet” as a special use name to serve as a default namespace for >>>> homenets. It also asks IANA for an unsecured delegation in the root zone >>>> to avoid DNSSEC validation failures for local names under “.homenet”. The >>>> root zone request to IANA has caused some discussion within the WG, as >>>> there’s no precedent for such a request. >>>> >>>> Terry Manderson mentioned the homenet-dot draft briefly at the mic in >>>> Seoul. >>>> >>>> The WGLC ends this week. >>>> >>>> >>>> Suzanne >>>> >>>>> Begin forwarded message: >>>>> >>>>> From: Ray Bellis <r...@bellis.me.uk> >>>>> Subject: [homenet] WGLC on "redact" and "homenet-dot" >>>>> Date: November 17, 2016 at 11:27:08 PM EST >>>>> To: HOMENET <home...@ietf.org> >>>>> >>>>> This email commences a four week WGLC comment period on >>>>> draft-ietf-homenet-redact and draft-ietf-homenet-dot >>>>> >>>>> Please send any comments to the WG list as soon as possible. >>>>> >>>>> Whilst there was a very strong hum in favour of ".homenet" vs anything >>>>> else during the meeting, and there's some discussion of that ongoing >>>>> here on the list - I'd like us to please keep the discussion of the >>>>> choice of domain separate from other substantive comment about the >>>>> drafts' contents. >>>>> >>>>> thanks, >>>>> >>>>> Ray >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> homenet mailing list >>>>> home...@ietf.org >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
