Special-Use Domain 'home.arpa.'
draft-ietf-homenet-dot-14

[Ballot comment]
"As a result, the use of '.home' is deprecated."
I had to double-checked that .home was NOT in https://www.iana.org/assignments/special-use-domain-names/special-use-domain-names.xhtml
.home was specified/requested in RFC7788 but never requested to IANA according to RFC6761.
If mentioned in the draft, this info might help others...

[Ballot discuss]
      A.  Recursive resolvers at sites using 'home.arpa.'  MUST
          transparently support DNSSEC queries: queries for DNSSEC
          records and queries with the DO bit set ([RFC4035] section
          3.2.1).  While validation is not required, it is strongly
          encouraged: a caching recursive resolver that does not
          validate answers that can be validated may cache invalid
          data.  This in turn will prevent validating stub resolvers
          from successfully validating answers.

I don't understand the rationale for this requirement. As I understand it from this document, stuff ending in home.arpa cannot be DNSSEC validated, so what's it the business of this document to levy the requirement on sites which support home.arpa that they do anything with DNSSEC at all.

[Ballot comment]
This was originally a DISCUSS, but Ted nicely (and quickly!) addressed my concerns - clearing.


Major issues:

1: I think that this document could benefit from additional review in the DNSOP WG - it got some (https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg19620.html), but that was a: while it was still homenet. b: primarily focused in terms of RFC6761 and not on the whole systems / interaction with existing behaviors, c: largely devolved into "does this do go in the root zone or not"?, d: 9 revisions back.
The document feels vague about much of the details / expected behavior from all of the different players, and I think more focused review from more DNS people would help.


2: What is a "caching resolver"? It is the same as a "recursive resolver"? Or is it a "full-service resolver"? The fact that the answer to RFC6761 Q4 uses both terms makes me think that they are different, but I don't know how. 


3: The document says: "Unless configured otherwise, recursive resolvers and DNS proxies MUST behave as described in Locally Served Zones ([RFC6303] Section 3).", but I do not see this being added to the locally served zones registry. This was raised in a previous review (Jon Mitchell, OpsDir (for v03) https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-homenet-dot-03-opsdir-early-mitchell-2017-03-18/ ), and not implemented. I'm assuming there is a reason, but I haven't found the discussion.


4: The document describes what recursive servers should do with queries for things in home.arpa, but seems to gloss over some detail -- I think that the document would benefit from an overview showing the stub (and / or validating stub), an internal recursive / proxy, an external recursive, the local authoritative for home.arpa, and the .arpa servers, and clearly explain what the expected behavior / role for each one under various scenarios is.


5: Even with the above answered, I remain confused by the "what does a recursive resolver do" bit -- this discusses what a recursive server should do with a DS query for home.arpa - this (obviously) exists to prevent DNSSEC validating stubs from believing that foo.home.arpa is bogus. It also means that it is expected that queries from stubs will sometimes arrive at these recursive resolvers (and they "MUST behave as described in Locally Served Zones" is not simply to prevent pollution). If a query for printer.bedroom.home.arpa does arrive at a recursive, and it is configured as a locally served zone, it will return NXDOMAIN. This (obviously) breaks the lookup for printer.bedroom.home.arpa, but RFC8020 (" NXDOMAIN: There Really Is Nothing Underneath ") also says that this means that nothing exists in bedroom.home.arpa - I think that there needs to be some more text describing the deployment, and which set of queries go where.


6: Section 7.  Delegation of ’home.arpa.’
This delegation MUST NOT include a DS record, and MUST point to one or more black hole servers, for example ’blackhole-1.iana.org.’ and ’blackhole- 2.iana.org.’.
I fully agree with the DS bit, but the "blackhole" bit feels VERY hand-wavey. Currently a lookup for home.arpa to these returns REFUSED instead of NXDOMAIN:
$ dig +nostat +nocmd home.arpa @blackhole-2.iana.org
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: REFUSED, id: 7826
;; flags: qr rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0
;; WARNING: recursion requested but not available

;; QUESTION SECTION:
;home.arpa. IN A

The document just delegates this to ’blackhole-1.iana.org.’ and ’blackhole- 2.iana.org.’ - they're are not authoritative for home.arpa (and nothing in the doc makes them so), and so this does not return NXDOMAIN and instead amplifies the query load. Delegating them to RFC7535 servers *may* help, but I'm not sure.


7: "In addition to the behavior specified above, recursive resolvers that can be used in a homenet MUST be configurable with a delegation to an authoritative server for that particular homenet’s instance of the domain ’home.arpa.’."  -- Ok, but how does this interact with the requirements on local-zones? I'm *guessing* it overrides it, and if I get a query for printer.livingroom.home.arpa I should "forward" it to the authoritative servers? The document also seems





Minor issues / nits:
1: Section 1.  Introduction.
"A default name with a scope limited to each individual homenet needs to be used." -- I don't understand the "needs to be used" - perhaps "needs to be defined"? Otherwise it sounds like, if the ISP delegates a name, implementations must ignore it. Adding "In these cases," to the beginning of this sentence may clarify.

2: "No such process is available for requesting a similar delegation in the root" -- I think this would be better as "No such process is *currently* available...."

3: Section 3.  General Guidance
" Names ending with ’.home.arpa.’ reference a locally-served zone," -- the term "locally-served zone" has specific meaning in the DNS context - see https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-05. I'd suggest clarifying that this is not what you mean here.

4: Section 4.  Domain Name Reservation Considerations
It seems that a number of readers didn't get that this next bit is to answer the questions from 6761 - I'd suggest  something like:
  "This section contains answers to the questions posed in Section 5 of RFC6761 and define the behavior of systems involved in domain name
  resolution when resolving queries for names ending with ’.home.arpa.’.

5: " ... zone,  the client may be unable to resolve, or may receive incorrect results for, names in sub domains of ’home.arpa.’." -- "names in sub domains of 'home.arpa.'" are things like foo.bar.home.arpa -- do you just mean "names in 'home.arpa'" ?


6: "a query for a DS record when the DO bit ([RFC4035] section 3.2.1) set MUST return " -- missing "is" after the closing parens?

7: Section 6 - Security Considerations
"To prevent this from happening, it may be useful for the resolver to identify different homenets on which it has resolved names, but this is out of scope for this document." -- is this a stub resolver? recursive? both?

8: "An alternative would be to install a authenticated denial of existence ([RFC4033] Section 3.2)." -- 1: *an* authenticated and 2: "authenticated denial of existence *record*" (I think. I'm not quite sure on the wording here, and suspect it would need more text, like "DNSSEC records proving authenticated denial of existence.")


-- Original DISCUSS for posterity --
1: Section 4.  Domain Name Reservation Considerations, Subsection 4
If I'm a recursive server and I am configured "with a delegation to an authoritative server for that particular homenet’s instance of the domain ’home.arpa.’." then I have a local zone containing "home.arpa  IN  NS  ". Unless I'm really confused, this means that I have to make myself authoritative for .arpa, which will a: break everything else in .arpa, and b: will (correctly!) be DNSSEC bogus to validating stubs. (See also #5).
Perhaps you mean that there should be something like (BINDism):
zone "home.arpa" {
type forward;
forwarders { 192.0.2.1; 192.0.2.2; };
};
This possibility only came to me after much thought, and I do not think that it could be described as "a delegation". I also do not think that this is a standard / well defined behavior.


2: Section 4.  Domain Name Reservation Considerations, Subsection 4
"Caching resolvers conforming to this specification MUST support DNSSEC queries." This is a MUST, so it's important to understand, but I don't understand what it actually means.  What is a "DNSSEC query"? It is just one with the DO bit? It is one looking for a DS / RRSIG / similar as the qtype? I don't know what this means, so I don't know if it applies to me / what I should do.


3: "Unless configured otherwise, recursive resolvers and DNS proxies MUST behave as described in Locally Served Zones ([RFC6303] Section 3).  That is, queries for domains that are subdomains of ’home.arpa.’ MUST NOT be forwarded, with one important exception: ..."
This says that I must not forward for *domains* that are *subdomains* of home.arpa. The example shows a lookup for NS for 'home.arpa', so presumably this is actually talking about subdomains of home.arpa.  So, I have no idea what to do for lookups within home.arpa itself -- what do I do with query for the A record for printer.home.arpa? It is simply a name within home.arpa; I have no way of knowing if it is a subdomain of home.arpa but it certainly isn't a domain that is a subdomain of home.arpa (because there are only three label, not four).

[Ballot discuss]
1: Section 4.  Domain Name Reservation Considerations, Subsection 4
If I'm a recursive server and I am configured "with a delegation to an authoritative server for that particular homenet’s instance of the domain ’home.arpa.’." then I have a local zone containing "home.arpa  IN  NS  ". Unless I'm really confused, this means that I have to make myself authoritative for .arpa, which will a: break everything else in .arpa, and b: will (correctly!) be DNSSEC bogus to validating stubs. (See also #5).
Perhaps you mean that there should be something like (BINDism):
zone "home.arpa" {
type forward;
forwarders { 192.0.2.1; 192.0.2.2; };
};
This possibility only came to me after much thought, and I do not think that it could be described as "a delegation". I also do not think that this is a standard / well defined behavior.


2: Section 4.  Domain Name Reservation Considerations, Subsection 4
"Caching resolvers conforming to this specification MUST support DNSSEC queries." This is a MUST, so it's important to understand, but I don't understand what it actually means.  What is a "DNSSEC query"? It is just one with the DO bit? It is one looking for a DS / RRSIG / similar as the qtype? I don't know what this means, so I don't know if it applies to me / what I should do.


3: "Unless configured otherwise, recursive resolvers and DNS proxies MUST behave as described in Locally Served Zones ([RFC6303] Section 3).  That is, queries for domains that are subdomains of ’home.arpa.’ MUST NOT be forwarded, with one important exception: ..."
This says that I must not forward for *domains* that are *subdomains* of home.arpa. The example shows a lookup for NS for 'home.arpa', so presumably this is actually talking about subdomains of home.arpa.  So, I have no idea what to do for lookups within home.arpa itself -- what do I do with query for the A record for printer.home.arpa? It is simply a name within home.arpa; I have no way of knowing if it is a subdomain of home.arpa but it certainly isn't a domain that is a subdomain of home.arpa (because there are only three label, not four).

[Ballot comment]
Major issues:

1: I think that this document could benefit from additional review in the DNSOP WG - it got some (https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg19620.html), but that was a: while it was still homenet. b: primarily focused in terms of RFC6761 and not on the whole systems / interaction with existing behaviors, c: largely devolved into "does this do go in the root zone or not"?, d: 9 revisions back.
The document feels vague about much of the details / expected behavior from all of the different players, and I think more focused review from more DNS people would help.


2: What is a "caching resolver"? It is the same as a "recursive resolver"? Or is it a "full-service resolver"? The fact that the answer to RFC6761 Q4 uses both terms makes me think that they are different, but I don't know how. 


3: The document says: "Unless configured otherwise, recursive resolvers and DNS proxies MUST behave as described in Locally Served Zones ([RFC6303] Section 3).", but I do not see this being added to the locally served zones registry. This was raised in a previous review (Jon Mitchell, OpsDir (for v03) https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-homenet-dot-03-opsdir-early-mitchell-2017-03-18/ ), and not implemented. I'm assuming there is a reason, but I haven't found the discussion.


4: The document describes what recursive servers should do with queries for things in home.arpa, but seems to gloss over some detail -- I think that the document would benefit from an overview showing the stub (and / or validating stub), an internal recursive / proxy, an external recursive, the local authoritative for home.arpa, and the .arpa servers, and clearly explain what the expected behavior / role for each one under various scenarios is.


5: Even with the above answered, I remain confused by the "what does a recursive resolver do" bit -- this discusses what a recursive server should do with a DS query for home.arpa - this (obviously) exists to prevent DNSSEC validating stubs from believing that foo.home.arpa is bogus. It also means that it is expected that queries from stubs will sometimes arrive at these recursive resolvers (and they "MUST behave as described in Locally Served Zones" is not simply to prevent pollution). If a query for printer.bedroom.home.arpa does arrive at a recursive, and it is configured as a locally served zone, it will return NXDOMAIN. This (obviously) breaks the lookup for printer.bedroom.home.arpa, but RFC8020 (" NXDOMAIN: There Really Is Nothing Underneath ") also says that this means that nothing exists in bedroom.home.arpa - I think that there needs to be some more text describing the deployment, and which set of queries go where.


6: Section 7.  Delegation of ’home.arpa.’
This delegation MUST NOT include a DS record, and MUST point to one or more black hole servers, for example ’blackhole-1.iana.org.’ and ’blackhole- 2.iana.org.’.
I fully agree with the DS bit, but the "blackhole" bit feels VERY hand-wavey. Currently a lookup for home.arpa to these returns REFUSED instead of NXDOMAIN:
$ dig +nostat +nocmd home.arpa @blackhole-2.iana.org
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: REFUSED, id: 7826
;; flags: qr rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0
;; WARNING: recursion requested but not available

;; QUESTION SECTION:
;home.arpa. IN A

The document just delegates this to ’blackhole-1.iana.org.’ and ’blackhole- 2.iana.org.’ - they're are not authoritative for home.arpa (and nothing in the doc makes them so), and so this does not return NXDOMAIN and instead amplifies the query load. Delegating them to RFC7535 servers *may* help, but I'm not sure.


7: "In addition to the behavior specified above, recursive resolvers that can be used in a homenet MUST be configurable with a delegation to an authoritative server for that particular homenet’s instance of the domain ’home.arpa.’."  -- Ok, but how does this interact with the requirements on local-zones? I'm *guessing* it overrides it, and if I get a query for printer.livingroom.home.arpa I should "forward" it to the authoritative servers? The document also seems





Minor issues / nits:
1: Section 1.  Introduction.
"A default name with a scope limited to each individual homenet needs to be used." -- I don't understand the "needs to be used" - perhaps "needs to be defined"? Otherwise it sounds like, if the ISP delegates a name, implementations must ignore it. Adding "In these cases," to the beginning of this sentence may clarify.

2: "No such process is available for requesting a similar delegation in the root" -- I think this would be better as "No such process is *currently* available...."

3: Section 3.  General Guidance
" Names ending with ’.home.arpa.’ reference a locally-served zone," -- the term "locally-served zone" has specific meaning in the DNS context - see https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-05. I'd suggest clarifying that this is not what you mean here.

4: Section 4.  Domain Name Reservation Considerations
It seems that a number of readers didn't get that this next bit is to answer the questions from 6761 - I'd suggest  something like:
  "This section contains answers to the questions posed in Section 5 of RFC6761 and define the behavior of systems involved in domain name
  resolution when resolving queries for names ending with ’.home.arpa.’.

5: " ... zone,  the client may be unable to resolve, or may receive incorrect results for, names in sub domains of ’home.arpa.’." -- "names in sub domains of 'home.arpa.'" are things like foo.bar.home.arpa -- do you just mean "names in 'home.arpa'" ?


6: "a query for a DS record when the DO bit ([RFC4035] section 3.2.1) set MUST return " -- missing "is" after the closing parens?

7: Section 6 - Security Considerations
"To prevent this from happening, it may be useful for the resolver to identify different homenets on which it has resolved names, but this is out of scope for this document." -- is this a stub resolver? recursive? both?

8: "An alternative would be to install a authenticated denial of existence ([RFC4033] Section 3.2)." -- 1: *an* authenticated and 2: "authenticated denial of existence *record*" (I think. I'm not quite sure on the wording here, and suspect it would need more text, like "DNSSEC records proving authenticated denial of existence.")

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for queuing up changes from the SecDir review and adding mention of privacy implications into the security considerations section.  I read through the responses on the SecDir list and agree with the statements and changes made.

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/E7fjRdo94abFW5nqjVBbLspvkww

[Ballot discuss]
Thanks for your work on this draft!  The SecDir review raised a few important points I'd like to discuss that should be easy to resolve.  The first is adding in privacy considerations in his comments for the Security considerations section posted here for convenience (but a response to his full thread might be best):

There are also some privacy issues associated to leaking names outside the homenet boundaries. For example daniel_smith.home.arpa reveal the identity of the member of the homenet, my_ipad.home.arpa reveals the devices you own, the application.

home.arpa may also used in larger environment such as corporate / private. going from one to the other may also leak such information.

The leak can be from the homenet to the outside world in which case one neeed to control the queries sent. But in intruder (or guest) may also access the homenet and proceed to discovery of the names.
As a result even though homenet is believe to be a trusted environment, care should be considered while publishing under the home.arpa. as
well as whose the information is accessible to. 

They might be collision as well. myprinter.home.arpa may be found in various environments, and upon discovery you may also - in this example - print confidential information to that printer.
In some case you may not even be aware, for example, if your printing information failed home, and is re-activated once you are in another environment. 

As information may be sensitive it may be encrypted using IPsec DTLS as described by dprive for both authentication and confidentiality.

When the trust anchor is configured in the resolver, these must be able to roll-over the key and should follows the requirements for DNSSEC validators. if it is impossible for a resolver to see the difference between an attack and a re-key we are in trouble.

[Ballot comment]
The other comments raised by the SecDir review should get a response, especially those on section 4 as there are some wording suggestions to better clarify what is intended in the document.

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/E7fjRdo94abFW5nqjVBbLspvkww

[Ballot comment]
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?

I'm having a hard time reconciling the normative requirement in section 4:

      Name resolution APIs and libraries MUST NOT recognize names that
      end in '.home.arpa.' as special and MUST NOT treat them
      differently.

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?

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-12. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Services Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which we must complete.

First, in the Special-Use Domain Names registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/special-use-domain-names/

the string home.arpa will be registered as follows:

Name: home.arpa
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Second, we will request the approval of the IAB to implement the delegation of home.arpa with the following details:

This delegation will not include a DS record, and will point to one or more black hole servers, for example 'blackhole-1.iana.org.' and 'blackhole-2.iana.org.'.

The IANA Services Operator understands that these two actions are the only ones required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed.


Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2017-08-25):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: homenet-chairs@ietf.org, ray@bellis.me.uk, draft-ietf-homenet-dot@ietf.org, homenet@ietf.org, terry.manderson@icann.org, Ray Bellis
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Special Use Domain 'home.arpa.') to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Home Networking WG (homenet) to
consider the following document: - 'Special Use Domain 'home.arpa.''
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2017-08-25. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of
the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document specifies the behavior that is expected from the Domain
  Name System with regard to DNS queries for names ending with
  '.home.arpa.', and designates this domain as a special-use domain
  name. 'home.arpa.' is designated for non-unique use in residential
  home networks.  Home Networking Control Protocol (HNCP) is updated to
  use the 'home.arpa.' domain instead of '.home'.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-homenet-dot/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-homenet-dot/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

>> Proposed Standard

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

  Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
  and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
  an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
  or introduction.

>> This document updates RFC 7788 (Home Networking Control Protocol),
>> eliminating the recommendation for ".home" as the default top-level
>> name for name resolution within a homenet and replacing it with
>> ".home.arpa." per the RFC 6761 process.

Working Group Summary

  Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
  example, was there controversy about particular points or
  were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
  Rough?

>> The working group was strongly opposed to the idea of redacting the
>> ".home" TLD without a replacement TLD requested at the same time.
>> Upon granting of ".home.arpa." the open source homenet reference
>> implementation will be updated accordingly (but not before, as
>> removing the default TLD with no replacement would result in a
>> non-working system).

Document Quality

  Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
  significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
  implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
  merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
  e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
  conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
  there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
  what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
  review, on what date was the request posted?

>> Existing open source implementations of the HNCP protocol do contain
>> the originally specified ".home" value, but it is expected that they
>> will change to ".home.arpa." on approval

Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
  Director?

>> Ray Bellis is the document shepherd.  Terry Manderson is the
>> responsible AD.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

>> The document shepherd considers the document ready for publication

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

>> No major concerns, although engagement within the WG has dropped and
>> reviews of the later versions (following the directive to change from
>> the intended application for ".homenet" to ".home.arpa") have been
>> hard to come by.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

>> The documents have been seen by many people with a particular
>> interest in special-use domain names. It’s not anticipated that any
>> further specific reviews are required.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here.

>> I have a minor concern over whether the suggestion to use "example"
>> blackhole servers of BLACKHOLE-1.IANA.ORG and BLACKHOLE-2.IANA.ORG
>> is concrete enough and whether an explicit request to the AS112
>> operators should be made.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

>> There are no IPR declarations filed yet, but they can be requested if
>> required. The document shepherd believes in any event that there is
>> nothing in the document that could give rise to an IPR claim, with the
>> document being an relatively straight-forward application of IETF process.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
Disclosures.

>> There have been no IPR disclosures for these documents. The chairs
>> are unaware of any IPR for these documents.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? 

>> A number of procedural options have been considered, and current WG
>> consensus could be described as as rather strong for: "if we must do
>> something to eliminate the use of .home as specified in RFC 7788, this
>> is the path we prefer".

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

>> There are no concerns in this regard

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

>> No ID nits found

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

>> Not applicable

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

>> Yes

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

>> No

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.

>> No

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

>> The document updates RFC 7788, and the headers and text are
>> clear on this.  HNCP is referenced by name but not by number in the
>> abstracts.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

>> See (6) above

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

>> There are no new registries created

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

>> not applicable

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

>> Proposed Standard

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

  Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
  and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
  an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
  or introduction.

>> This document updates RFC 7788 (Home Networking Control Protocol),
>> eliminating the recommendation for ".home" as the default top-level
>> name for name resolution within a homenet and replacing it with
>> ".home.arpa." per the RFC 6761 process.

Working Group Summary

  Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
  example, was there controversy about particular points or
  were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
  Rough?

>> The working group was strongly opposed to the idea of redacting the
>> ".home" TLD without a replacement TLD requested at the same time.
>> Upon granting of ".home.arpa." the open source homenet reference
>> implementation will be updated accordingly (but not before, as
>> removing the default TLD with no replacement would result in a
>> non-working system).

Document Quality

  Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
  significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
  implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
  merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
  e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
  conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
  there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
  what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
  review, on what date was the request posted?

>> Existing open source implementations of the HNCP protocol do contain
>> the originally specified ".home" value, but it is expected that they
>> will change to ".home.arpa." on approval

Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
  Director?

>> Ray Bellis is the document shepherd.  Terry Manderson is the
>> responsible AD.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

>> The document shepherd considers the document ready for publication

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

>> No major concerns, although engagement within the WG has dropped and
>> reviews of the later versions (following the directive to change from
>> the intended application for ".homenet" to ".home.arpa") have been
>> hard to come by.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

>> The documents have been seen by many people with a particular
>> interest in special-use domain names. It’s not anticipated that any
>> further specific reviews are required.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here.

>> I have a minor concern over whether the suggestion to use "example"
>> blackhole servers of BLACKHOLE-1.IANA.ORG and BLACKHOLE-2.IANA.ORG
>> is concrete enough and whether an explicit request to the AS112
>> operators should be made.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

>> There are no IPR declarations filed yet, but they can be requested if
>> required. The document shepherd believes in any event that there is
>> nothing in the document that could give rise to an IPR claim, with the
>> document being an relatively straight-forward application of IETF process.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
Disclosures.

>> There have been no IPR disclosures for these documents. The chairs
>> are unaware of any IPR for these documents.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? 

>> A number of procedural options have been considered, and current WG
>> consensus could be described as as rather strong for: "if we must do
>> something to eliminate the use of .home as specified in RFC 7788, this
>> is the path we prefer".

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

>> There are no concerns in this regard

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

>> No ID nits found

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

>> Not applicable

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

>> Yes

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

>> No

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.

>> No

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

>> The document updates RFC 7788, and the headers and text are
>> clear on this.  HNCP is referenced by name but not by number in the
>> abstracts.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

>> See (6) above

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

>> There are no new registries created

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

>> not applicable

Based on the reviews from many folk, the discussions in DNSOP and HOMENET, the clarifying questions and responses during the HOMENET session at IETF98, a number of other DNS expert level discussions I have had, and the IAB statement [1] my final assessment on the HOMENET domain is as follows.

A TLD request is not the ideal architectural direction that would encompass the goals of the greater Internet along with the ethos and scope of the IETF.

I shall be returning the document (draft-ietf-homenet-dot) to the WG to consider and find consensus on a domain under .ARPA

The already stated technical assessment is a .ARPA subdomain can satisfy the requirement for a special use domain, in addition to being resolvable in the DNS with the requested characteristics. The WG should consider the situations where the name of the device is escalated to the user, not that I believe the WG should engage in UI/UX design, but to ensure that if it is desired by the WG that the name be suitably obfuscated, HOMENET features should exist to ensure that.

Thanks
Terry

[1] https://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/2017-2/iab-statement-on-the-registration-of-special-use-names-in-the-arpa-domain/

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

>> Proposed Standard

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

  Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
  and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
  an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
  or introduction.

>> This pair of documents update RFC 7788 (Home Networking Control
>> Protocol), with the first eliminating the recommendation for ".home" as
>> the default top-level name for name resolution within a homenet and the
>> second replacing it with ".homenet" per the RFC 6761 process.

Working Group Summary

  Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
  example, was there controversy about particular points or
  were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
  Rough?

>> The working group was strongly opposed to the idea of redacting the
>> ".home" TLD without a replacement TLD requested at the same time. Upon
>> granting of ".homenet" the open source homenet reference implementation
>> will be updated accordingly (but not before, as removing the default TLD
>> with no replacement would result in a non-working system).

Document Quality

  Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
  significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
  implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
  merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
  e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
  conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
  there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
  what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
  review, on what date was the request posted?

>> Existing open source implementations of the HNCP protocol do contain
>> the originally specified ".home" value, but it is expected that they
>> will change to ".homenet" on approval

Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
  Director?

>> Ray Bellis is the document shepherd.  Terry Manderson is the
>> responsible AD.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

>> The document shepherd considers the document ready for publication

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

>> No significant concerns, although engagement within the WG has dropped

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

>> The documents have been seen by many people with a particular
>> interest in special-use domain names. It’s not anticipated that any
>> further specific reviews are required.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here.

>> The IANA considerations in the homenet-dot document request that an
>> insecure delegation for ".homenet" is put into the global root zone.
>> This is somewhat contentious in that no process exists for such a
>> request, but it is nevertheless requested on the basis that internal
>> DNSSEC cannot work without it.  In particular, an internal validating
>> stub resolver would believe the root zone’s existing "signed denial of
>> existence" and subsequent lookups for the local ".homenet" zone would
>> fail.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

>> There are no IPR declarations filed yet, but they can be requested if
>> required. The document shepherd believes in any event that there is
>> nothing in the documents that could give rise to an IPR claim, with the
>> documents being in one case a trivial redaction of an existing document
>> and the other an application of IETF process.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
Disclosures.

>> There have been no IPR disclosures for these documents. The chairs
>> are unaware of any IPR for these documents.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? 

>> A number of procedural options have been considered, and current WG
>> consensus could be described as as rather strong for: "if we must do
>> something to eliminate the use of .home as specified in RFC 7788, this
>> is the path we prefer".  The WG would have preferred that redaction and
>> reintroduction had been within a single document vs two separate
>> documents, but accepts them advancing as two "clustered" documents as
>> agreed with the responsible AD.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

>> There is no outstanding explicit threat of appeal of the current
>> consensus as it stands.  There have been very strong opinions expressed
>> on this topic, including a discussion during our last meeting that
>> someone "may or may not file an appeal" (see minutes from IETF 97) on
>> the WG’s consensus choice of a pseudo-TLD as the default domain name.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

>> No ID nits found

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

>> Not applicable

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

>> Yes

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

>> No

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.

>> The documents normatively reference each other and are expected to be
>> published together such that the downrefs are resolved.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

>> The documents both update RFC 7788, and the headers and text are
>> clear on this.  HNCP is referenced by name but not by number in the
>> abstracts.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

>> See (6) above

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

>> There are no new registries created

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

>> not applicable