OK, these both sound like worthwhile updates to the doc. I will add them to my working copy and send proposed diffs later today (I'm in the middle of processing the gen-art review).
> El Aug 28, 2017, a les 11:18 PM, Adam Roach <a...@nostrum.com> va escriure: > > On 8/28/17 5:29 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: >> El Aug 28, 2017, a les 6:07 PM, Adam Roach <a...@nostrum.com >> <mailto:a...@nostrum.com>> va escriure: >>> Section 4 contains a list that it describes as defining "the behavior of >>> [DNS] >>> systems". Item number 7 seems to be something else: I don't know what code >>> or >>> configuration would result from this statement. Maybe move this item to >>> section >>> 3? >> >> This is the format that RFC 6761 requires us to follow, which is why it's >> being done this way. I think the text makes sense if you read it with the >> RFC 6761 list of criteria in section 5 in mind. So I don't think it makes >> sense to move it, although I agree it scans a bit strangely. :) > > Oh! That makes a lot more sense -- I should have chased down that section in > 6761. I think what's tripping me up is the introduction in the homenet-dot > draft: "This section defines the behavior of systems involved in domain name > resolution when resolving queries for names ending with '.home.arpa.' (as per > [RFC6761])." -- it would be clearer if it said something more like "This > section reserves the '.home.arpa.' subdomain according to the procedures > outlined in [RFC6761] section 4." > > (I'll also note that 6761 appears to require this to be "a subsection of the > 'IANA Considerations' section", so you might consider moving it accordingly > -- this would have been somewhat less confusing if it were clearer that it's > part of the registration process, which putting it in the 'IANA > Considerations' section would have done.) >> >>> With the explanation in section 6: >>> >>> it may be useful for the resolver to identify different >>> homenets on which it has resolved names >>> >>> Doesn't this mitigation in the security section require name resolution >>> libraries to recognize names that end in ".home.arpa." as special so that it >>> can treat them differently? >> >> Section 6 is talking about future work. If we come up with a way to do >> this, then it would update this document, changing the normative requirement. > > To me, this reads as something that could be done unilaterally by the local > resolver according to their own reasonable notion of what the proper > mitigations might be here. I would suggest rephrasing to make it clearer that > this suggestion pertains to _future_ work; e.g., "To prevent this from > happening, future documents may define behavior that allows resolvers to > identify and distinguish among different homenets on which they have resolved > names, and take appropriate measures to avoid such confusion." > > > > /a >
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
