Subject: [homenet] RFC 7788 and ".home"

From: Ray Bellis <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2016 08:42:37 +0100

The Chairs have been asked to forward this to the WG on behalf of the IAB:

--8<--8<--

The IAB discussed RFC 7788 and the appearance of the domain ".home" in
the RFC. The IAB was happy to see that an appropriate erratum has been
filed and approved, observing the problem with RFC 7788 and publishing a
fix for the error. The original text in the RFC is problematic, because
the use of .home in this case would constitute use of .home as a Special
Use Name, but there is no text in RFC 7788 following the process in
section 5 of RFC 6761 and no IANA Considerations updating the Special
Use Names registry.

The IAB requests that the homenet WG and the IESG follow up on the
publication of the erratum for RFC 7788 with the re-approval of the RFC
with a fix as quickly as possible. The IAB feels strongly that a
correct, formal RFC is required immediately to avoid any further
problems. Also, sending a timely note to the implementors known to be
interested in HOMENET may be useful.

The IAB considers the existence of RFC 7788 in its current state to be
problematic for two reasons: the specification of home in an IETF
document without following the appropriate RFC 6761 process may result
in other organizations pointing out that the IETF can't even follow its
own processes with regard to Special Use Names; and encoding .home as
the default in implementations may result in embedding this
inappropriate use of .home in deployed products.]

--8<--8<--

There is some time set aside on our agenda on Monday for Jari to speak
about this.

In the meantime, please note that the RFC 7788 authors have filed a -bis
draft (draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-bis-00).

thanks,

Ray and Mark

---

From: Terry Manderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2016 08:50:06 +0000

Thanks Ray,

I would also like the WG to read this draft before entering the discussion
on this topic.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-stw-whatsinaname

While currently a -00 individual submission there is some very good
guidance in this document that might help frame everyone's thoughts.

Thanks
Terry

On 16/07/2016, 5:42 PM, "homenet on behalf of Ray Bellis"
<[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:

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

---

From: Mikael Abrahamsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 15:33:28 +0200 (CEST)

The option 4 mentioned updating RFC7788. It's not clear to me what this 
update would be.

.HOME has not been handed out by ICANN yet, what's the odds that RFC6761 
process reserving .HOME for special use would succeed?

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: [email-masked]

---

From: Mikael Abrahamsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 15:45:45 +0200 (CEST)

> process reserving .HOME for special use would succeed?

Let me just clarify. Updating RFC7788 to remove ".home", then do RFC6761 
process to reserve .home for special use, succeeding in that, then 
updating RFC7788 again. This seems silly.

I propose fast-tracking RFC6761 process for ".home" reservation for 
special-use, and not touch RFC7788 unless this process fails.

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 16:03:24 +0200

Zero.   See the discussion in draft-tldr-sutld-02 on this topic (search for
.home).

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 10:16:41 -0400

On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 03:33:28PM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> 
> .HOME has not been handed out by ICANN yet

There are several applications for home in the root zone.  To my mind,
that means that home has been claimed as being inside the global DNS
context, and therefore is not available under RFC 6761.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Mikael Abrahamsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 16:17:13 +0200 (CEST)

On Mon, 18 Jul 2016, Ted Lemon wrote:

> Zero.  See the discussion in draft-tldr-sutld-02 on this topic (search 
> for .home).

I guess you mean https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tldr-sutld-ps-02 ?

I can't find any mention of .home in it.

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 16:24:04 +0200

Wow.   Apparently my freudian slip at the microphone today is a trend: the
place where I should have said ".home" in sutldr-ps, I said ".local"
instead.   Thanks for indirectly pointing this out to me!   :}

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 17:01:46 +0200

Yup.   In terms of minimizing risk to the IETF, switching to .homenet is
expedient--that's why I put it in the Homenet Naming/Service Discovery
Architecture doc.   Perhaps some homenet participants aren't aware of the
issues surrounding this.
The reason we are getting so much top-down push from IETF leadership on
this is not that IETF leadership are being political--it's that there's a
real cost to the IETF if one of the GTLD people decides that we have taken
a name for which they paid an application fee.   I apologize for glossing
over this in my earlier response.

If people are interested in better understanding this problem, I encourage
you to read this:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tldr-sutld-ps-02#section-3

You can get more background by reading section 4 as well.   Bear in mind,
s/.local/.home/ in section 4.2.4.

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 15:11:18 +0000

Hi Ted,

On 18 Jul 2016, at 15:03, Ted Lemon <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

Zero.   See the discussion in draft-tldr-sutld-02 on this topic (search for .home).

I don’t see “home” explicitly cited in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tldr-sutld-ps-02, but it’s an interesting read nonetheless.

Tim

On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 3:33 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

The option 4 mentioned updating RFC7788. It's not clear to me what this update would be.

.HOME has not been handed out by ICANN yet, what's the odds that RFC6761 process reserving .HOME for special use would succeed?

--
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>

_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 17:14:21 +0200

I accidentally wrote ".local" in section 4.2.4 instead of ".home."

On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 5:11 PM, Tim Chown <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hi Ted,
>
> On 18 Jul 2016, at 15:03, Ted Lemon <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> I don’t see “home” explicitly cited in
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tldr-sutld-ps-02, but it’s an
> interesting read nonetheless.
>
> Tim
>
>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 03:22:57 +1200

> context, and therefore is not available under RFC 6761.

I don't get that. There's nothing about that in RFC 6761, which is mainly
very boring stuff that could be written up for this case, regardless
of the actual domain name. It's our own self-imposed bureaucracy.

RFC 6761 is one thing, but RFC 2860 is another. Under note (a)
to clause 4.3 of that MoU, the IETF can direct IANA to reserve
.$WHATEVER$. for technical use.

Doing so for .home. would be entertaining, of course. Doing so
for .homenet. seems plausible.

   Brian

---

From: Mikael Abrahamsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 17:40:01 +0200 (CEST)

On Tue, 19 Jul 2016, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> Doing so for .home. would be entertaining, of course. Doing so for 
> .homenet. seems plausible.

It seems to already be used for that, and as said before, ICANN has 
refused all applications for .home already.

.home is tainted by ad-hoc use. The ad-hoc use seems to be exactly the 
same use as RFC7788 uses it for.

Why not formalise it?

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 03:43:06 +1200

On 19/07/2016 03:40, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>> Doing so for .home. would be entertaining, of course. Doing so for .homenet. seems plausible.
> 
> It seems to already be used for that, and as said before, ICANN has refused all applications for .home already.
> 
> .home is tainted by ad-hoc use. The ad-hoc use seems to be exactly the same use as RFC7788 uses it for.
> 
> Why not formalise it?

To be blunt, because ICANN and possibly the IETF would get sued for many M$.

   Brian

---

From: Wouter Cloetens <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 17:47:16 +0200

On 18/07/16 17:01, Ted Lemon wrote:
> Yup.   In terms of minimizing risk to the IETF, switching to .homenet 
> is expedient--that's why I put it in the Homenet Naming/Service 
> Discovery Architecture doc.   Perhaps some homenet participants aren't 
> aware of the issues surrounding this.
> The reason we are getting so much top-down push from IETF leadership 
> on this is not that IETF leadership are being political--it's that 
> there's a real cost to the IETF if one of the GTLD people decides that 
> we have taken a name for which they paid an application fee.   I 
> apologize for glossing over this in my earlier response.
I'm a bit confused about this. Although Dothome Ltd. paid an application 
fee, they failed the initial evaluation. ICANN ultimately concluded in 
2013 that .home was high risk, or "dead" in the terminology used in an 
article to which ICANN links.

I can't reach this at the moment:
https://icannwiki.com/.home
So here's the Google cache:
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:OdSc1uEzj_cJ:https://icannwiki.com/.home+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=de

So, why would ICANN's gTLD people not be open to declaring .home to be 
off their list, and open for redefinition by IETF?

>
> If people are interested in better understanding this problem, I 
> encourage you to read this: 
" o IETF and ICANN independently have remit to assign names out of the 
namespace that Internet Names represent; a formal coordination process 
does not exist."

Can't that be fixed? Has anyone tried to speak to / negotiate with ICANN?
>
> You can get more background by reading section 4 as well. Bear in 
> mind, s/.local/.home/ in section 4.2.4.
>
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 4:16 PM, Andrew Sullivan 
> <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 18:03:43 +0200

It could be seen as collusion. Remember, lawyers are much more creative in
finding vulns than all but the most paranoid of security geeks. :)

On Jul 18, 2016 17:49, "Wouter Cloetens" <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> fee, they failed the initial evaluation. ICANN ultimately concluded in 2013
> that .home was high risk, or "dead" in the terminology used in an article
> to which ICANN links.
>
> So, why would ICANN's gTLD people not be open to declaring .home to be off
> their list, and open for redefinition by IETF?
>
>
> namespace that Internet Names represent; a formal coordination process does
> not exist."
>

---

From: Wouter Cloetens <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 18:14:56 +0200

Am I to interpret that response as a "no" to the question whether anyone 
has spoken to ICANN? Which would mean that the rejection of .home is 
based on an assumption?

bfn, Wouter

On 18/07/16 18:03, Ted Lemon wrote:
>
> It could be seen as collusion. Remember, lawyers are much more 
> creative in finding vulns than all but the most paranoid of security 
> geeks. :)
>
>
> On Jul 18, 2016 17:49, "Wouter Cloetens" 
> <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>>     Yup.   In terms of minimizing risk to the IETF, switching to
>>     .homenet is expedient--that's why I put it in the Homenet
>>     Naming/Service Discovery Architecture doc.   Perhaps some homenet
>>     participants aren't aware of the issues surrounding this.
>>     The reason we are getting so much top-down push from IETF
>>     leadership on this is not that IETF leadership are being
>>     political--it's that there's a real cost to the IETF if one of
>>     the GTLD people decides that we have taken a name for which they
>>     paid an application fee.   I apologize for glossing over this in
>>     my earlier response.
>     I'm a bit confused about this. Although Dothome Ltd. paid an
>     application fee, they failed the initial evaluation. ICANN
>     ultimately concluded in 2013 that .home was high risk, or "dead"
>     in the terminology used in an article to which ICANN links.
>
>     So, why would ICANN's gTLD people not be open to declaring .home
>     to be off their list, and open for redefinition by IETF?
>
>>
>     " o IETF and ICANN independently have remit to assign names out of
>     the namespace that Internet Names represent; a formal coordination
>     process does not exist."
>
>>     You can get more background by reading section 4 as well.   Bear
>>     in mind, s/.local/.home/ in section 4.2.4.
>>
>     [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>

-- 
Chief Home Gateway Architect     SoftAtHome  http://www.softathome.com/
https://www.linkedin.com/in/wcloetens Vaartdijk 3/B701, B-3018 Wijgmaal
Tel: +32-16-852010  Mobile: +32-492-277790   Conf. phone: +32-16-852097

This message and any attachments are confidential, intended solely for
the addressees and are SoftAtHome’s ownership.
Any unauthorized use or dissemination is prohibited. If you are not the
intended addressee of this message, please cancel it immediately and
inform the sender.

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 12:40:54 -0400

> of the actual domain name. It's our own self-imposed bureaucracy.

Question 7 asks how registries and registrars should react to this
name.  Given that the home TLD is in-process in the ICANN delegation
procedures from the root zone, it is logically possible that at any
moment ICANN could change its administrative procedures and home would
get delegated.

So the answer to question 7 cannot be but ambiguous under these
circumstances.  To me, that means that the requirements of 6761 can't
possibly be met by home, and therefore home can't be allocated under
special use.

This is the point that Jari made and that I was going to make at the
mic: this isn't a mere political problem, but an actual functional one
under our own procedures.  There is just no way we could allocate home
under 6761 right now, without a very strong statement from ICANN that
it would be ok.

I also argue (see my note from yesterday) that generalizing from
"people seem to be doing somehting like this with this name, because I
talked to a guy from $vendor and he said so" to "using this as a
protocol switch in a protocol will not have a problem" seems to me to
require a pretty big leap.

> .$WHATEVER$. for technical use.

I strongly agree -- that part is the very reason why 6761 was even
possible, in my opinion.
 
> for .homenet. seems plausible.

I know it can be entertainment to watch those films where someone
foolishly got into a car that was then swept over Niagara Falls.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 12:43:11 -0400

> all applications for .home already.

No, it has not.  If it had, it would have refunded all those
applicants' money and so on.  It has not formally decided anything as
a permanent matter.

> use as RFC7788 uses it for.

How exactly do you determine this "exactly the same" use among a large
swathe of unknown people all over the Internet?  

Best regards,

A
-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 12:45:35 -0400

On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 06:14:56PM +0200, Wouter Cloetens wrote:
> Am I to interpret that response as a "no" to the question whether anyone has
> spoken to ICANN?

You may interpret it as you wish, but it's worth noting that the IETF
has a liaison to the ICANN board.

Nevertheless, as I said upthread, this is not merely a political problem.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 16:48:53 +0000

Hi,

On 18 Jul 2016, at 17:14, Wouter Cloetens <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

Am I to interpret that response as a "no" to the question whether anyone has spoken to ICANN? Which would mean that the rejection of .home is based on an assumption?

There was an ICANN person present in a meeting as far back as IETF88 willing to talk about this specific case.

Tim

bfn, Wouter

It could be seen as collusion. Remember, lawyers are much more creative in finding vulns than all but the most paranoid of security geeks. :)

On Jul 18, 2016 17:49, "Wouter Cloetens" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
On 18/07/16 17:01, Ted Lemon wrote:
Yup.   In terms of minimizing risk to the IETF, switching to .homenet is expedient--that's why I put it in the Homenet Naming/Service Discovery Architecture doc.   Perhaps some homenet participants aren't aware of the issues surrounding this.
The reason we are getting so much top-down push from IETF leadership on this is not that IETF leadership are being political--it's that there's a real cost to the IETF if one of the GTLD people decides that we have taken a name for which they paid an application fee.   I apologize for glossing over this in my earlier response.
I'm a bit confused about this. Although Dothome Ltd. paid an application fee, they failed the initial evaluation. ICANN ultimately concluded in 2013 that .home was high risk, or "dead" in the terminology used in an article to which ICANN links.

So, why would ICANN's gTLD people not be open to declaring .home to be off their list, and open for redefinition by IETF?

If people are interested in better understanding this problem, I encourage you to read this: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tldr-sutld-ps-02#section-3
" o IETF and ICANN independently have remit to assign names out of the namespace that Internet Names represent; a formal coordination process does not exist."

You can get more background by reading section 4 as well.   Bear in mind, s/.local/.home/ in section 4.2.4.

On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 4:16 PM, Andrew Sullivan <<mailto:[email-masked]>[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

Best regards,

A

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 05:08:12 +1200

> possibly be met by home, and therefore home can't be allocated under

Oh, I didn't interpret q7 quite that way. I would have answered
it with virtually the same text as q7 for localhost in RFC6761.
In fact several of the answers for localhost would serve for this case,
I think.

> under 6761 right now, without a very strong statement from ICANN that

I agree, but I see that as a meta-issue rather than an RFC6761 issue.

> require a pretty big leap.

I agree. A brand new name with no known usage is a safer path.

> foolishly got into a car that was then swept over Niagara Falls.

As long as it isn't your own car.

   Brian

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 09:32:09 +0200

On 7/18/16 5:01 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> Architecture doc.   Perhaps some homenet participants aren't aware of
> the issues surrounding this.   
> this is not that IETF leadership are being political--it's that there's
> a real cost to the IETF if one of the GTLD people decides that we have
> taken a name for which they paid an application fee.   I apologize for
> glossing over this in my earlier response.

The failure to direct IANA to assign the TLD also means that we
encouraged  the creation exactly the sort of attractive nuisance that
the consensus around advancing 6761 intended to adress. The situation we
find ourselves imperils developers as well as end-users both those
intending to employ it as is described in 7788 as well as those that do not.

> encourage you to read
> this: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tldr-sutld-ps-02#section-3
> 
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 4:16 PM, Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> 
>     [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
>