Subject: [DNSOP] draft-hardaker-dnsop-private-namespace-options

From: Wes Hardaker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2020 14:50:47 -0800

I've been thinking for a while what approach to take with respect to
private name spaces.  This document summarizes some of my thinking, and
draws some conclusions (that will likely poke some bears and beehives at
the same time).

------

A new version of I-D, draft-hardaker-dnsop-private-namespace-options-00.txt
has been successfully submitted by Wes Hardaker and posted to the
IETF repository.

Name:		draft-hardaker-dnsop-private-namespace-options
Revision:	00
Title:		DNS Private Namespace Options
Document date:	2020-11-02
Group:		Individual Submission
Pages:		9
URL:            https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-hardaker-dnsop-private-namespace-options-00.txt
Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hardaker-dnsop-private-namespace-options/
Htmlized:       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-hardaker-dnsop-private-namespace-options
Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hardaker-dnsop-private-namespace-options-00

Abstract:
   This document discusses the trade-offs between various options about
   creating a private namespace within top level domains within the root
   zone.

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

The IETF Secretariat

-- 
Wes Hardaker
USC/ISI

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 2 Nov 2020 20:50:25 -0500

>draws some conclusions (that will likely poke some bears and beehives at

Having been around this barn a few times I'm inclined to take a more
hard-assed approach and say that if you want to use a private TLD and
DNSSEC, it's up to you to figure out how to manage the trust anchors.
This means no unsigned delegation or anything else in the root.

R's,
John

---

From: "Andrew McConachie" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2020 11:05:45 +0100

Hi Wes,

I’m having a hard time understanding the two proposed deployments in 
this document.

In 2.2.1 it states that .internal does not exist in the GID. Yet in the 
Summary section immediately after it states that .internal is an 
unsigned TLD. Which is it?

In 2.2.2 it states that .zz is an unsigned delegation in the GID’s DNS 
root. Yet in the summary section it states that “.zz is a 
special-use-like TLD that MUST never be assigned”. Which is it?

My understanding of an unsigned TLD is that it is delegated in the root 
zone unsigned. And I take it that GID is simply a synonym for what many 
call The Public DNS.

Thanks,
Andrew

On 2 Nov 2020, at 23:50, Wes Hardaker wrote:

> A new version of I-D, 
> draft-hardaker-dnsop-private-namespace-options-00.txt
> URL:            
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-hardaker-dnsop-private-namespace-options-00.txt
> Status:         
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hardaker-dnsop-private-namespace-options/
> Htmlized:       
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-hardaker-dnsop-private-namespace-options
> Htmlized:       
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hardaker-dnsop-private-namespace-options-00
>
>
> Abstract:
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

---

From: Wes Hardaker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2020 17:11:05 -0800

> I’m having a hard time understanding the two proposed deployments in

It's not as clean as I'd like, certainly.  I was pushing up against the
draft submission deadlines and didn't get all the wording into place.

> In 2.2.1 it states that .internal does not exist in the GID. Yet in
> the Summary section immediately after it states that .internal is an

.internal is an unsigned TLD and is the GID.

I don't see where in 2.2.1 it says that though.

> special-use-like TLD that MUST never be assigned”. Which is it?

The later.  .zz is not delegated.  Again I'm not sure which sentence
you're referring to though.

[someone did note that one of my section names is incorrect as well and
referred to the wrong one]

> My understanding of an unsigned TLD is that it is delegated in the
> root zone unsigned. And I take it that GID is simply a synonym for
> what many call The Public DNS.

Yep.  It's "Global Internet's DNS (GID)", per the document.

There are, unfortunately, more than one naming environments.  We've
known this for years with even /etc/hosts being different from the DNS,
and NIS coming along later, etc.  Nowdays, there are so many
split-systems with both internal and externally differing naming sets I
was trying to use something that included the world "global" to be
super-clear this is the "big one".
-- 
Wes Hardaker
USC/ISI

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2020 01:54:33 +0000

> super-clear this is the "big one".

There is "global DNS" from RFC 8499. Or is your GID supposed to be something different?

--Paul Hoffman

---

From: Wes Hardaker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2020 21:00:08 -0800

> There is "global DNS" from RFC 8499. Or is your GID supposed to be something different?

Same thing.
-- 
Wes Hardaker
USC/ISI

---

From: "Andrew McConachie" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2020 10:21:50 +0100

> .internal is an unsigned TLD and is the GID.

1.  Is a special-use domain per [RFC6761], and does not (and will
        never) exist in the GID.  In this document, we refer to this as
        ".internal" for discussion purposes only following conventions 
in
        [draft-wkumari-dnsop-internal].

I read the above text as telling me that .internal will never exist in 
the GID.

> you're referring to though.

  2.  Is an unsigned delegation within the (GID's) DNS root, with NS
        records likely pointing eventually to something like 
127.0.53.53.
        In this document, we refer to this as ".zz" following convention
        in [draft-ietf-dnsop-private-use-tld].  We note that 
[draft-ietf-
        dnsop-alt-tld] also proposed a private namespace (".alt") that
        also fits into this category.

This seems to be saying that .zz is an unsigned delegation. Am I missing 
something obvious here?

---

From: Wes Hardaker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2020 08:47:50 -0800

"Andrew McConachie" <[email-masked]> writes:

>  1. Is a special-use domain per [RFC6761], and does not (and will never) exist in the GID.
>     In this document, we refer to this as ".internal" for discussion purposes only following
>     conventions in [draft-wkumari-dnsop-internal].
> 

Ahh...  thanks for the precise reference.

Yes, those two bullets are backwards in their examples. Ugh.  .internal
and .zz should be switched there.

(fixed in the source)
-- 
Wes Hardaker
USC/ISI

---

From: "Andrew McConachie" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2020 23:06:24 +0100

On 4 Nov 2020, at 17:47, Wes Hardaker wrote:

>> never) exist in the GID.

Thanks Wes. That makes sense.