> On Dec 14, 2016, at 10:42 AM, Ted Lemon <mel...@fugue.com> wrote: > > .alt may not need an insecure delegation. It depends on whether anything > under .alt is meant to be resolved using DNS.
Agreed ...what I was thinking was that .alt would have a secure delegation, and then the IETF could add an insecure delegation to home.alt Of course, I may be way confused here, as I'm getting close to the boundaries of my DNS skillz. - Ralph > > On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 9:20 AM, Ralph Droms <rdroms.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Dec 12, 2016, at 5:14 PM, Ted Lemon <mel...@fugue.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 12, 2016, at 4:56 PM, james woodyatt <j...@google.com> wrote: > >> I would strongly prefer that we avoid the risks above by using a > >> special-purpose subdomain of a gTLD owned by IETF. I don’t really care > >> which gTLD we use, and if “arpa” is really the only reasonable choice, > >> then so be it. However, I can imagine a world where the Working Group > >> decides that “arpa” is unacceptable for whatever reason and decides that > >> it’s better to wait until IETF has another domain with a better name. And > >> I’m not ready to tell them I think that would be a very bad idea. > > > > Remember that if we allocated some subdomain like .arpa, we would face a > > different procedural problem with ICANN that would almost certainly take a > > similar amount of time to resolve. > > Ted - I agree that a new SUDN (.alt? draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-06) would face > procedural issues, although not (in my opinion) with ICANN. We have .arpa as > a precedent and designating .alt as an SUDN is strictly an IETF matter ... > assuming appropriate notification to and consultation with ICANN. The point > is that we have the procedure with ICANN in place, whereas an insecure > delegation for .homenet has no such process. > > One of the issues that (again, strictly my opinion) that has held up > draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-06 is the lack of a real use case as motivation for > progressing a designation of .alt. Perhaps now, with a name for homenet > under .alt, we have both a use case and a generalized solution to motivate > designation of .alt > > - Ralph > > > > > From a process perspective, trying to get ICANN to do an insecure > > delegation for .homenet is actually a worthwhile thing to do; the challenge > > is that it introduces some substantial potential for delay and uncertainty. > > So does your non-.arpa TLD idea, so from our perspective there is no > > difference, whether or not there may be some difference for the IETF as a > > whole. We will almost certainly be visiting that problem space in the > > future. > > > > That said, if expedient is what the WG wants, .arpa is what’s expedient. > > As I say, I am not leaning strongly in either direction. I think that a > > strong argument for one choice or the other would either have to do with > > .homenet being technically better for some reason, or with the delay being > > unacceptable. Right now I don’t think we’re under that kind of time > > pressure, which is why I’m not more exercised about the possibility of a > > long delay in getting .homenet delegated. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > homenet mailing list > > homenet@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet > > _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
