Re: [DNSOP] ALT-TLD and (insecure) delgations.

2017-02-04 Thread Patrik Fältström
On 4 Feb 2017, at 2:57, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 12:21:16PM -0800, Steve Crocker wrote: > >> And just to stir the pot a bit, what would you have ICANN do if someone >> applies for .alt as a top level domain? Is it ok if we say yes and delegate >> the name? If not, what

Re: [DNSOP] ALT-TLD and (insecure) delgations.

2017-02-04 Thread Ray Bellis
On 04/02/2017 02:13, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > Right, that's always been the problem with using this _for the DNS_. > Homenet has no choice in that, because the whole point of the homenet > name is precisely to enable in-homenet DNS without reference to the > global DNS. I think you're quite corr

[DNSOP] DNS BoF at FOSDEM, Sunday

2017-02-04 Thread Peter van Dijk
Hello DNS people! For those of you attending FOSDEM, we have reserved room H.3227 for Sunday(!) 13:00-14:00, to hold a DNS BoF. There is no agenda yet; please suggest items by private reply. If you are at FOSDEM, or if you know anyone who is, please make sure they know! If you think I missed

Re: [DNSOP] ALT-TLD and (insecure) delgations.

2017-02-04 Thread Mark Andrews
In message <20170204020711.gd67...@mx2.yitter.info>, Andrew Sullivan writes: > Hi, > > On Sat, Feb 04, 2017 at 09:47:08AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote: > > > > Also the ICANN's rule for signed TLD delegation for new gTLD is so > > that delegations from those zones can be signed. > > I don't think

Re: [DNSOP] ALT-TLD and (insecure) delgations.

2017-02-04 Thread Mark Andrews
In message <20170204021353.gf67...@mx2.yitter.info>, Andrew Sullivan writes: > On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 08:54:59PM -0500, Ted Lemon wrote: > > On Feb 3, 2017, at 8:51 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > > > If the resolver "has a local zone for alt" -- I think this means it is > > > authoritative for tha

Re: [DNSOP] ALT-TLD and (insecure) delgations.

2017-02-04 Thread Suzanne Woolf
> On Feb 3, 2017, at 9:40 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > > On Feb 3, 2017, at 9:10 PM, Andrew Sullivan > wrote: >> My memory is that only after that >> did we start thinking of a sort of 1918-style part of the DNS as >> well. That may have been a mistake, since as this

Re: [DNSOP] ALT-TLD and (insecure) delgations.

2017-02-04 Thread Ted Lemon
On Feb 4, 2017, at 4:46 AM, Ray Bellis wrote: > If it turns out that we can't get the insecure delegation that we need > for .homenet, then I'd (personally) be reasonably happy with > .homenet.alt, except that the current proposals for the use of .alt > wouldn't seem to permit that. .alt doesn't

Re: [DNSOP] ALT-TLD and (insecure) delgations.

2017-02-04 Thread Ted Lemon
On Feb 4, 2017, at 8:29 AM, Mark Andrews wrote: > > It's a problem for ALL special names. BOGUS / SERVFAIL isn't the > response leaked names should get. Its bad engineering. What is the response leaked names should get, and why is that the correct response? Why is SERVFAIL not the correct r

Re: [DNSOP] ALT-TLD and (insecure) delgations.

2017-02-04 Thread Mark Andrews
In message <9920bdf2-e676-4262-9226-46652896e...@fugue.com>, Ted Lemon writes: > > On Feb 4, 2017, at 8:29 AM, Mark Andrews wrote: > > > > It's a problem for ALL special names. BOGUS / SERVFAIL isn't the > > response leaked names should get. Its bad engineering. > > What is the response leaked

Re: [DNSOP] ALT-TLD and (insecure) delgations.

2017-02-04 Thread Suzanne Woolf
> On Feb 4, 2017, at 4:46 AM, Ray Bellis wrote: > > > > On 04/02/2017 02:13, Andrew Sullivan wrote: >> Right, that's always been the problem with using this _for the DNS_. >> Homenet has no choice in that, because the whole point of the homenet >> name is precisely to enable in-homenet DNS wit

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps

2017-02-04 Thread Warren Kumari
On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 10:34 AM, Jeremy Rand wrote: > Suzanne Woolf: >> This message opens a Working Group Last Call for: >> >> "Special-Use Names Problem Statement" >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps/ >> >>