> On Mar 22, 2017, at 1:11 PM, Andrew Sullivan <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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.
I agree that the request is misdirected toward IANA and misplaced in an "IANA Considerations" section. If the IETF consensus is to find a way to instantiate the appropriate entry in the root zone, such an instantiation should acknowledge several realities and recognize that IETF is making a request of ICANN. It seems to me homenet-dot should be revised: * take the relevant text out of the IANA considerations section * add a section that - motivates and explicitly defines the desired entry in the root zone - suggests that a request be made directly to ICANN - explicitly points out that no process for such a request exists, and it might be necessary for IETF and ICANN to develop a mutually acceptable process before the request from .homenet can be considered - asks for IETF advice on this plan - Ralph > > Best regards, > > A (speaking, of course, for myself) > > -- > Andrew Sullivan > [email protected] > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
