Hi, On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 09:19:24AM -0700, Ray Bellis wrote: > Arguably I'm not "typical", but IMHO we shouldn't be designing for the > lowest common denominator.
That argument is absurd on the face of it, because anyone sufficiently clueful about systems to be using ssh or hand-entering domain names is also sufficiently clueful to recognize that maybe they should use the google search result that pertains to networking rather than the US DoD. (Presumably these are the same people who have figured out that iab.org and iab.com are not the same organizations.) Therefore, homenet.arpa would work just fine for such people, there'd be no design for LCD, and also we'd get something that would work and wouldn't involve a constitutional crisis for IANA. > Either way, the Homenet WG has reached its consensus decision to request > ".homenet" rather than ".homenet.arpa". Since the point of this discussion is to inform IETF consensus, HOMENET's consensus is not the only thing that counts. It is entirely possible that HOMENET's consensus will not be the IETF consensus. > To those that say "no insecure delegations in the root zone" because > "DNSSEC is good" I don't think anyone is saying anything about that. The point is that _someone else_ gets to decide. The IETF has literally no say in the decision about what goes in the root zone itself, and hasn't since the IETF signed its MoU with ICANN. (Some argue that for this reason the IETF must never allocate a top-level label. I do not agree with them, but there is absolutely no question about whether we are in a position to decide actual registrations in the root zone.) The plain fact is that the IETF IANA considerations in draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03 makes a request of IANA that the IETF has no business making, because we are requesting an entry in a registry whose policy is controlled by someone else. It's clear that the weasel words "arrange for" are there to pretend we're not making such a request it, but the MUST NOT be signed is an attempt to specify protocol operation in a registry where we have no business working. If this proceeds as IETF consensus, it will be apparent that it is the IETF, not ICANN, that threatens the stability of the IANA arrangements. I hope we do not have to explore that rathole in my lifetime. Best regards, A (speaking, of course, for myself) -- Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
