The problem is that the consensus process has to include them and we don't
know how to do that.

On Nov 16, 2016 16:35, "Mark Andrews" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> In message <CAPt1N1=5KyXA7XLd3Ks6y+T+0SWSXcdXUTozbVw4ed3EwpQTYA@
> mail.gmail.com>
> , Ted Lemon writes:
> > Well, yes, but it means that we need to ask ICANN to do an insecure
> > delegation, and there isn't a process for that.
>
> We are adults.  They are adults.  We can talk together.  That should
> be all the process needed once there is consensus that the name and
> delegation are needed for protocol reasons.
>
> > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Mark Andrews <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > In message <CAPt1N1m_btPK8TGugoYd7iWxU6sEkPM288biBM
> [email protected].
> > 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 wri
> > tes
> > >> :
> > >> >> 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 6048
> > 00
> > >> 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]
> --
> 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