Well, yes, but it means that we need to ask ICANN to do an insecure
delegation, and there isn't a process for that.

On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Mark Andrews <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> In message 
> <capt1n1m_btpk8tgugoyd7iwxu6sekpm288bibm3xss7hrp2...@mail.gmail.com>
> , Ted Lemon writes:
>> Yeah, this sunk in for all of us when we were standing around outside
>> the meeting room kvetching.   It's a bit of a conundrum.
>
> No.
>
> All it means is that there isn't policy for this which is exactly
> the correct state of affairs for special names in the root namespace.
> Each name needs to be individually handled as each is special with
> its own requirements.
>
> Mark
>
>> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 3:30 PM, Mark Andrews <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > In message <[email protected]>, Andrew Sullivan writes
>> :
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> Mark Andrews's point about a DNSSEC insecure delegation today was not
>> >> I think fully appreciated.
>> >>
>> >> In order to create a top-most label in the domain name that can be
>> >> used this way and that has the necessary properties, we cannot simply
>> >> instruct IANA to do it.  That is in fact creating a delegation in the
>> >> root zone of the DNS.  I believe that RFC 2860 (the MoU between the
>> >> IETF and ICANN) does allow us to create special-use domain names at
>> >> the top-most level.  But I do not believe it allows us to create
>> >> special-use domain names at the top-most level _in the DNS_, because
>> >> that is control of the root zone and it is unambiguously the province
>> >> of ICANN.
>> >>
>> >> Therefore, if the WG decides to use a top-level label for these
>> >> purposes, we have to apply to ICANN to get it delegated from the root
>> >> in a provably insecure fashion.  Interestingly, ICANN actually has a
>> >> policy that it won't delegate things from the root any more that are
>> >> _not_ DNSSEC signed, and the whole point here is in fact to add an
>> >> entry that is contrary to that policy, so getting such a delegation
>> >> would require ICANN to change its policies before it could happen.
>> >
>> > I suspect this is a mischaracterization of the policy.  GTLD
>> > delegations are so constrained.  This is not a GTLD delegation.
>> >
>> > New country code delegations are not so constrained.
>> >
>> > We are not asking them to delegate away from the roots.
>> >
>> > root zone:
>> > HOMENET. NS A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
>> > ...
>> > HOMENET. NS M.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
>> >
>> > homenet zone:
>> > HOMENET. SOA a.root-servers.net. nstld.verisign-grs.com. 1 1800 900 604800
>> 86400
>> > HOMENET. NS A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
>> > ...
>> > HOMENET. NS M.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
>> >
>> > B.T.W. this should also be done for .ONION and .LOCAL if we want
>> > local DNS resolvers to intercept these queries.  DNSSEC keeps
>> > getting forgotten.  The only reason people aren't screaming
>> > is that there are very few validating clients and the both
>> > .ONION and .LOCAL don't use the DNS.  SERVFAIL is nearly as
>> > good as NXDOMAIN for these use cases.
>> >
>> > HOMENET uses the DNS.  If one can get a trust anchor for HOMENET
>> > installed in every validator there shouldn't be any queries for
>> > HOMENET/DS.
>> >
>> >> That is an important practical fact that ought to be taken into
>> >> consideration when deciding what kind of label to use.
>> >>
>> >> Best regards,
>> >>
>> >> A
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Andrew Sullivan
>> >> [email protected]
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> homenet mailing list
>> >> [email protected]
>> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
>> > --
>> > Mark Andrews, ISC
>> > 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
>> > PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: [email protected]
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > homenet mailing list
>> > [email protected]
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
> --
> Mark Andrews, ISC
> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: [email protected]

_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

Reply via email to