$ORIGIN example.com
        $TTL 1h
        
        @  IN  SOA  public.masters.example.net 
                    hostmaster.example.com. (
              2013120710 ; serial number of this zone file
              1d         ; slave refresh 
              2h         ; slave retry time in case of a problem
              4w         ; slave expiration time 
              1h         ; maximum caching time in case of failed 
                         ; lookups
              )

        @   NS  public.authoritative.servers.example.net

        public.masters.example.net   A @IP1
        public.masters.example.net   A @IP2
        public.masters.example.net   AAAA @IP3
        public.masters.example.net   AAAA @IP4

Figure 3: DNS Homenet Zone

The SOA RRset is defined in [RFC1033], [RFC1035] and [RFC2308]. This SOA is specific as it is used for the synchronization between the Hidden Master and the Public Authoritative Name Server Set and published on the DNS Public Authoritative Master.

- MNAME:

indicates the primary master. In our case the zone is published on the Public Authoritative Master, and its name MUST be mentioned. If multiple Public Authoritative Masters are involved, one of them MUST be chosen. More specifically, the CPE MUST NOT place the name of the Hidden Master.

- RNAME:

indicates the email address to reach the administrator. [RFC2142] recommends to use hostmaster@domain and replacing the '@' sign by '.'.

- REFRESH and RETRY:

indicate respectively in seconds how often slaves need to check the master and the time between two refresh when a refresh has failed. Default value indicated by [RFC1033] are 3600 (1 hour) for refresh and 600 (10 minutes) for retry. This value MAY be long for highly dynamic content. However, Public Authoritative Masters and the CPE are expected to implement NOTIFY [RFC1996]. Then short values MAY increase the bandwidth usage for slaves hosting large number of zones. As a result, default values looks fine.

EXPIRE:

is the upper limit data SHOULD be kept in absence of refresh. Default value indicated by [RFC1033] is 3600000 about 42 days. In home network architectures, the CPE provides both the DNS synchronization and the access to the home network. This device MAY be plug / unplugged by the end user without notification, thus we recommend large period.

MINIMUM:

indicates the minimum TTL. Default value indicated by [RFC1033] is 86400 (1 day). For home network, this value MAY be reduced, and 3600 (1hour) seems more appropriated.

4.3. Example: CPE necessary parameters for outsourcing

This section specifies the various parameters required by the CPE to configure the naming architecture of this document. This section is informational, and is intended to clarify the information handled by the CPE and the various settings to be done.

Public Authoritative Name Server Set may be defined with the following parameters. These parameters are necessary to establish a secure channel between the CPE and the Public Authoritative Name Server Set:

- Public Authoritative Name Server Set:

The associated FQDNs or IP addresses of the Public Authoritative Server. IP addresses are optional and the FQDN is sufficient. To secure the binding name and IP addresses, a DNSSEC exchange is required. Otherwise, the IP addresses should be entered manually.

- Authentication Method:

How the CPE authenticates itself to the Public Server. This MAY depend on the implementation but we should consider at least IPsec, DTLS and TSIG

- Authentication data:

Associated Data. PSK only requires a single argument. If other authentication mechanisms based on certificates are used, then, files for the CPE private keys, certificates and certification authority should be specified.

- Public Authoritative Master(s):

The FQDN or IP addresses of the Public Authoritative Master. It MAY correspond to the data that will be set in the NS RRsets and SOA of the DNS Homenet Zone. IP addresses are optional and the FQDN is sufficient. To secure the binding name and IP addresses, a DNSSEC exchange is required. Otherwise, the IP addresses should be entered manually.

- Registered Homenet Domain:

The domain name the Public Authoritative is configured for DNS slave, DNSSEC zone signing and DNSSEC zone hosting.

Setting the DNS(SEC) Homenet Zone requires the following information.

- Registered Homenet Domain:

The Domain Name of the zone. Multiple Registered Homenet Domain may be provided. This will generate the creation of multiple DNS Homenet Zones.

- Public Authoritative Server:

The Public Authoritative Servers associated to the Registered Homenet Domain. Multiple Public Authoritative Server may be provided.

5. Synchronization between CPE and Public Authoritative Servers

The DNS(SEC) Homenet Reverse Zone and the DNS Homenet Zone can be updated either with DNS update [RFC2136] or using a master / slave synchronization. The master / slave mechanism is preferred as it better scales and avoids DoS attacks: First the master notifies the slave the zone must be updated, and leaves the slave to proceed to the update when possible. Then, the NOTIFY message sent by the master is a small packet that is less likely to load the slave. At last, the AXFR query performed by the slave is a small packet sent over TCP (section 4.2 [RFC5936]) which makes unlikely the slave to perform reflection attacks with a forged NOTIFY. On the other hand, DNS updates can use UDP, packets require more processing then a NOTIFY, and they do not provide the server the opportunity to post-pone the update.

This document recommends the use of a master / slave mechanism instead of the use of nsupdates. This section details the master / slave mechanism.

5.1. Synchronization with a Hidden Master

Uploading and dynamically updating the zone file on the Public Authoritative Name Server Set can be seen as zone provisioning between the CPE (Hidden Master) and the Public Authoritative Name Server Set (Slave Server). This can be handled either in band or out of band.

The Public Authoritative Name Server Set is configured as a slave for the Homenet Domain Name. This slave configuration has been previously agreed between the end user and the provider of the Public Authoritative Servers. In order to set the master/ slave architecture, the CPE acts as a Hidden Master Server, which is a regular Authoritative DNS(SEC) Server listening on the WAN interface.

The Hidden Master Server is expected to accept SOA [RFC1033], AXFR [RFC1034], and IXFR [RFC1995] queries from its configured slave DNS servers. The Hidden Master Server SHOULD send NOTIFY messages [RFC1996] in order to update Public DNS server zones as updates occur. Because, DNS Homenet Zones are likely to be small, CPE MUST implement AXFR and SHOULD implement IXFR.

Hidden Master Server differs from a regular authoritative server for the home network by:

- Interface Binding:

the Hidden Master Server listens on the WAN Interface, whereas a regular authoritative server for the home network would listen on the home network interface.

- Limited exchanges:

the purpose of the Hidden Master Server is to synchronizes with the Public Authoritative Name Server Set, not to serve zone. As a result, exchanges are performed with specific nodes (the Public Authoritative Servers). Then exchange types are limited. The only legitimate exchanges are: NOTIFY initiated by the Hidden Master and IXFR or AXFR exchanges initiated by the Public Authoritative Name Server Set. On the other hand regular authoritative servers would respond any hosts on the home network, and any DNS(SEC) query would be considered. The CPE SHOULD filter IXFR/AXFR traffic and drop traffic not initiated by the Public Authoritative Server. The CPE MUST listen for DNS on TCP and UDP and at least allow SOA lookups to the DNS Homenet Zone.

5.2. Securing Synchronization

Exchange between the Public Servers and the CPE MUST be secured, at least for integrity protection and for authentication. This is the case whatever mechanism is used between the CPE and the Public Authoritative Name Server Set.

TSIG [RFC2845] or SIG(0) [RFC2931] can be used to secure the DNS communications between the CPE and the Public DNS(SEC) Servers. TSIG uses a symmetric key which can be managed by TKEY [RFC2930]. Management of the key involved in SIG(0) is performed through zone updates. How to roll the keys with SIG(0) is out-of-scope of this document. The advantage of these mechanisms is that they are only associated with the DNS application. Not relying on shared libraries ease testing and integration. On the other hand, using TSIG, TKEY or SIG(0) requires that these mechanisms to be implemented on the DNS(SEC) Server's implementation running on the CPE, which adds codes. Another disadvantage is that TKEY does not provides authentication mechanism.

Protocols like TLS [RFC5246] / DTLS [RFC6347] can be used to secure the transactions between the Public Authoritative Servers and the CPE. The advantage of TLS/DTLS is that this technology is widely deployed, and most of the boxes already embeds a TLS/DTLS libraries, eventually taking advantage of hardware acceleration. Then TLS/DTLS provides authentication facilities and can use certificates to authenticate the Public Authoritative Server and the CPE. On the other hand, using TLS/DTLS requires to integrate DNS exchange over TLS/DTLS, as well as a new service port. This is why we do not recommend this option.

IPsec [RFC4301] IKEv2 [RFC7296] can also be used to secure the transactions between the CPE and the Public Authoritative Servers. Similarly to TLS/DTLS, most CPE already embeds a IPsec stack, and IKEv2 provides multiple authentications possibilities with its EAP framework. In addition, IPsec can be used to protect the DNS exchanges between the CPE and the Public Authoritative Servers without any modifications of the DNS Servers or client. DNS integration over IPsec only requires an additional security policy in the Security Policy Database. One disadvantage of IPsec is that it hardly goes through NATs and firewalls. However, in our case, the CPE is connected to the Internet, and IPsec communication between the CPE and Public Authoritative Server SHOULD NOT be impacted by middle boxes.

As mentioned above, TSIG, IPsec and TLS/DTLS may be used to secure transactions between the CPE and the Public Authentication Servers. The CPE and Public Authoritative Server SHOULD implement TSIG and IPsec.

How the PSK can be used by any of the TSIG, TLS/DTLS or IPsec protocols. Authentication based on certificates implies a mutual authentication and thus requires the CPE to manage a private key, a public key or certificates as well as Certificate Authorities. This adds complexity to the configuration especially on the CPE side. For this reason, we recommend that CPE MAY use PSK or certificate base authentication and that Public Authentication Servers MUST support PSK and certificate based authentication.

5.3. CPE Security Policies

This section details security policies related to the Hidden Master / Slave synchronization.

The Hidden Master, as described in this document SHOULD drop any queries from the home network. This can be performed with port binding and/or firewall rules.

The Hidden Master SHOULD drop on the WAN interface any DNS queries that is not issued from the Public Authoritative Server Name Server Set.

The Hidden Master SHOULD drop any outgoing packets other than DNS NOTIFY query, SOA response, IXFR response or AXFR responses.

The Hidden Master SHOULD drop any incoming packets other than DNS NOTIFY response, SOA query, IXFR query or AXFR query.

The Hidden Master SHOULD drop any non protected IXFR or AXFR exchange. This depends how the synchronization is secured.

6. DNSSEC compliant Homenet Architecture

[RFC7368] in Section 3.7.3 recommends DNSSEC to be deployed on the both the authoritative server and the resolver. The resolver side is out of scope of this document, and only the authoritative part is considered.

Deploying DNSSEC requires signing the zone and configuring a secure delegation. As described in Section 4.1, signing can be performed by the CPE or by the Public Authoritative Servers. Section 6.1 details the implications of these two alternatives. Similarly, the secure delegation can be performed by the CPE or by the Public Authoritative Servers. Section 6.2 discusses these two alternatives.

6.1. Zone Signing

This section discusses the pros and cons when zone signing is performed by the CPE or by the Public Authoritative Servers. It is recommended to sign the zone by the CPE unless there is a strong argument against it, like a CPE that is not able to sign the zone. In that case zone signing may be performed by the Public Authoritative Servers on behalf of the CPE.

Reasons for signing the zone by the CPE are:

- 1:

Keeping the Homenet Zone and the Public Zone equals to securely optimize DNS resolution. As the Public Zone is signed with DNSSEC, RRsets are authenticated and thus DNS responses can be validated even though they are not provided by the authoritative server. This provides the CPE the ability to respond on behalf of the Public Authoritative Master. This could be useful for example if, in the future, the CPE could announce to the home network that the CPE can act a a local authoritative master or equivalent for the Homenet Zone. Currently the CPE is not expected to receive authoritative DNS queries as its IP address is not mentioned in the Public Zone. On the other hand most CPE host a resolving function, and could be configured to perform a local lookup to the Homenet Zone instead of initiating a DNS exchange with the Public Authoritative Master. Note that outsourcing the zone signing operation requires that all DNSSEC queries be cached to perform a local lookup, otherwise a resolution with the Public Authoritative Master is performed.

- 2:

Keeping the Homenet Zone and the Public Zone equals to securely address the connectivity disruption independence exposed in [RFC7368] section 4.4.1 and 3.7.5. As local lookup is possible, in case of network disruption, communications within the home network can still rely on the DNSSEC service. Note that outsourcing the zone signing operation does not address connectivity disruption independence with DNSSEC. Instead a fall back to DNS resolution occurs as the local Homenet Zone is not signed.

- 3:

Keeping the Homenet Zone and the Public Zone equals to guarantee coherence between DNS(SEC) responses. Using a unique zone is one way to guarantee uniqueness of the responses among servers and places. Issues generated by different views are discussed in more details in Section 7.

- 2:

Privacy and Integrity of the DNS Zone are better guaranteed. When the Zone is signed by the CPE, it makes modification of the DNS data -- for example for flow redirection -- not possible. As a result, signing the Homenet Zone by the CPE provides better protection for the end user privacy.

Reasons for signing the zone by the Public Authoritative Servers are:

- 1:

The CPE is not able to sign the zone, most likely because its firmware does not make it possible. However the reason is expected to be less and less valid over time.

- 2:

Outsourcing DNSSEC management operations. Management operations involve key-roll over which can be done automatically by the CPE and transparently for the end user. As result avoiding DNSSEC management is mostly motivated by bad software implementations.

- 3:

Reducing the impact of CPE replacement on the Public Zone. Unless the CPE private keys are backuped, CPE replacement results in a emergency key roll over. This can be mitigated also by using relatively small TTLs.

- 4:

Reducing configuration impacts on the end user. Unless there are some zero configuration mechanisms to provide credentials between the new CPE and the Public Authoritative Name Server Sets. Authentications to Public Authoritative Name Server Set should be re-configured. As CPE replacement is not expected to happen regularly, end users may not be at ease with such configuration settings. However, mechanisms as described in [I-D.ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options] use DHCP Options to outsource the configuration and avoid this issue.

- 5:

Public Authoritative Servers are more likely to handle securely private keys than the CPE. However, having all private information at one place may also balance that risk.

6.2. Secure Delegation

The secure delegation is set if the DS RRset is properly set in the parent zone. Secure delegation can be performed by the CPE or the Public Authoritative Servers.

The DS RRset can be updated manually by the CPE or the Public Authoritative Servers. This can be used then with nsupdate for example bu requires the CPE or the Public Authoritative Server to be authenticated by the Parent Zone Server. Such a trust channel between the CPE and the Parent Zone server may be hard to maintain, and thus may be easier to establish with the Public Authoritative Server. On the other hand, [RFC7344] may mitigate such issues.

7. Handling Different Views

The DNS Homenet Zone provides information about the home network and some user may be tempted to have different information regarding the origin of the DNS query. More specifically, some users may be tempted to provide a different view for DNS queries originating from the home network and for DNS queries coming from the wild Internet. Each view can be associated to a dedicated Homenet Zone. Note that this document does not specify how DNS queries coming from the home network are addressed to the DNS(SEC) Homenet Zone. This could be done via the DNS resolver hosted on the CPE for example.

This section is not normative. Section 7.1 expose different reasons that result in different views, Section 7.2 briefly describes the consequences of having distinct views, and Section 7.3 provides guidance to avoid this situation.

7.1. Motivations

The main motivation to handle different views is to provide different information depending on the location the DNS query is emitted. Here are a few motivations for doing so:

- 1:

An end user may want to have services not published on the Internet. Services like the CPE administration interface that provides the GUI to administrate your CPE may not be published on the Internet. Similarly services like the mapper that registers the devices of your home network may not be published on the Internet. In both case, these services should only be known/used by the network administrator. To restrict the access of such services, the home network administrator may chose to publish these information only within the home network, where it may suppose users are more trustable then on the Internet. Even though, this assumption may not be valid, at least, this reduces the surface of attack.

- 2:

Services within the home network may be reachable using non global IP addresses. IPv4 and NAT may be one reason. On the other hand IPv6 may favor link-local or site-local IP addresses. These IP addresses are not significant outside the boundaries of the home network. As a result, they may be published in the home network view, and should not be published in the Internet.

- 3:

If the CPE does not sign the Homenet Zone and outsource the signing process, the two views are at least different since, one is protected with DNSSEC whereas the other is not.

7.2. Consequences

Enabling different views leads to a non-coherent naming system. Basically, depending on where you are some services will not be available. This may be especially inconvenient with devices with multiple interfaces that are attached both to the Internet via a 3G/4G interface and to the home network via a WLAN interface.

Regarding local-scope IP addresses, such device may end up with poor connectivity. Suppose, for example, the DNS resolution is performed via the WLAN interface attached to the CPE, the response provides local-scope IP addresses and the communication is initiated on the 3G/4G interface. Communications with local-scope addresses will be unreachable on the Internet, thus aborting the communication. The same situation occurs if a device is flip / flopping between various WLAN networks.

Regarding DNSSEC, devices with multiple interfaces will have difficulties to secure the naming resolution as responses emitted from the home network may not be signed.

For devices with all its interfaces attached to a single administrative domain, that is to say the home network or the Internet. Incoherence between DNS responses may also happen if the device is able to perform DNS resolutions. DNS resolutions performed via the CPE resolver may be different then those performed over the Internet.

7.3. Guidance and Recommendations

As exposed in Section 7.2, it is recommended to avoid different views. If network administrators chose to implement multiple views, impacts on devices' resolution should be evaluated.

A consequence the DNS(SEC) Homenet Zone is expected to be the exact copy of the DNS(SEC) Public Zone. As a result, services that are not expected to be published on the Internet should not be part of the DNS(SEC) Homenet Zone, local-scope address should not be part of the DNS(SE) Homenet Zone, and when possible, the CPE should sign the DNSSEC Homenet Zone.

The DNS(SEC) Homenet Zone is expected to host public information. It is not to the DNS service to define local home networks boundaries. Instead, local scope information is expected to be provided to the home network using local scope naming services. mDNS [RFC6762] DNS-SD [RFC6763] are one of these services. Currently mDNS is limited to a single link network. However, future protocols are expected to leverage this constraint as pointed out in [I-D.ietf-dnssd-requirements].

8. Reverse Zone

Most of the description considered the DNS Homenet Zone as the non-Reverse Zone. This section is focused on the Reverse Zone.

First, all considerations for the DNS Homenet Zone apply to the Reverse Homenet Zone. The main difference between the Reverse DNS Homenet Zone and the DNS Homenet Zone is that the parent zone of the Reverse Homenet Zone is most likely managed by the ISP. As the ISP also provides the IP prefix to the CPE, it may be able to authenticate the CPE. If the Reverse Public Authoritative Name Server Set is managed by the ISP, credentials to authenticate the CPE for the zone synchronization may be set automatically and transparently to the end user. [I-D.ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options] describes how automatic configuration may be performed.

With IPv6, the domain space for IP address is so large, that reverse zone may be confronted to a scalability issue. How to reverse zone is generated is out of scope of this document. [I-D.howard-dnsop-ip6rdns] provides guidance on how to address the scalability issue.

9. Privacy Considerations

Outsourcing the DNS Authoritative service from the CPE to a third entity comes with a a few privacy related concerns.

First the DNS Homenet Zone contains a full description of the services hosted in the network. These services may not be expected to be publicly shared although their names remains accessible though the Internet. Even though DNS makes information public, the DNS does not expect to make the complete list of service public. In fact, making information public still requires the key (or FQDN) of each service to be known by the resolver in order to retrieve information of the services. More specifically, making mywebsite.example.com public in the DNS, is not sufficient to make resolvers aware of the existence web site.

In order to prevent the complete DN(SEC) Homenet Zone to be published on the Internet, one should prevent AXFR queries on the Public Authoritative Masters. Similarly, to avoid zone-walking one should prefer NSEC3 [RFC5155] over NSEC [RFC4034].

When the DNS Homenet Zone is outsourced the end user must be aware that it provides a complete description of the services available on the home network. More specifically, names usually provides a clear indication of the service and eventually the device, by as the DNS Homenet Zone contains the IP addresses associated to the service, they limit the scope of the scan.

In addition to the DNS Homenet Zone, the third party can also monitor the traffic associated to the DNS Homenet Zone. This traffic may provide indication of the services you use, how and when you use these services. Although, cache may alter this information inside the home network, it is likely that outside your home network this information will not be cached.

10. Security Considerations

The Homenet Naming Architecture described in this document solves exposing the CPE's DNS service as a DoS attack vector.

10.1. Names are less secure than IP addresses

This document describes how an End User can make his services and devices from his home network reachable on the Internet with Names rather than IP addresses. This exposes the home network to attackers since names are expected to provide less randomness than IP addresses. The naming delegation protects the End User's privacy by not providing the complete zone of the home network to the ISP. However, using the DNS with names for the home network exposes the home network and its components to dictionary attacks. In fact, with IP addresses, the Interface Identifier is 64 bit length leading to 2^64 possibilities for a given subnetwork. This is not to mention that the subnet prefix is also of 64 bit length, thus providing another 2^64 possibilities. On the other hand, names used either for the home network domain or for the devices present less randomness (livebox, router, printer, nicolas, jennifer, ...) and thus exposes the devices to dictionary attacks.

10.2. Names are less volatile than IP addresses

IP addresses may be used to locate a device, a host or a Service. However, home networks are not expected to be assigned the same Prefix over time. As a result observing IP addresses provides some ephemeral information about who is accessing the service. On the other hand, Names are not expected to be as volatile as IP addresses. As a result, logging Names, over time, may be more valuable that logging IP addresses, especially to profile End User's characteristics.

PTR provides a way to bind an IP address to a Name. In that sense responding to PTR DNS queries may affect the End User's Privacy. For that reason we recommend that End Users may choose to respond or not to PTR DNS queries and may return a NXDOMAIN response.

11. IANA Considerations

This document has no actions for IANA.

12. Acknowledgment

The authors wish to thank Philippe Lemordant for its contributions on the early versions of the draft, Ole Troan for pointing out issues with the IPv6 routed home concept and placing the scope of this document in a wider picture, Mark Townsley for encouragement and injecting a healthy debate on the merits of the idea, Ulrik de Bie for providing alternative solutions, Paul Mockapetris, Christian Jacquenet, Francis Dupont and Ludovic Eschard for their remarks on CPE and low power devices, Olafur Gudmundsson for clarifying DNSSEC capabilities of small devices, Simon Kelley for its feedback as dnsmasq implementer. Andrew Sullivan, Mark Andrew, Ted Lemon, Mikael Abrahamson and Michael Richardson, Ray Bellis for their feed backs on handling different views as well as clarifying the impact of outsourcing the zone signing operation outside the CPE.

13. References

13.1. Normative References

[RFC1034]	Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities", STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987.
[RFC1035]	Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.
[RFC1995]	Ohta, M., "Incremental Zone Transfer in DNS", RFC 1995, August 1996.
[RFC1996]	Vixie, P., "A Mechanism for Prompt Notification of Zone Changes (DNS NOTIFY)", RFC 1996, August 1996.
[RFC2119]	Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2136]	Vixie, P., Thomson, S., Rekhter, Y. and J. Bound, "Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE)", RFC 2136, April 1997.
[RFC2142]	Crocker, D., "MAILBOX NAMES FOR COMMON SERVICES, ROLES AND FUNCTIONS", RFC 2142, May 1997.
[RFC2308]	Andrews, M., "Negative Caching of DNS Queries (DNS NCACHE)", RFC 2308, March 1998.
[RFC2845]	Vixie, P., Gudmundsson, O., Eastlake, D. and B. Wellington, "Secret Key Transaction Authentication for DNS (TSIG)", RFC 2845, May 2000.
[RFC2930]	Eastlake, D., "Secret Key Establishment for DNS (TKEY RR)", RFC 2930, September 2000.
[RFC2931]	Eastlake, D., "DNS Request and Transaction Signatures ( SIG(0)s)", RFC 2931, September 2000.
[RFC4034]	Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D. and S. Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions", RFC 4034, March 2005.
[RFC4301]	Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005.
[RFC5155]	Laurie, B., Sisson, G., Arends, R. and D. Blacka, "DNS Security (DNSSEC) Hashed Authenticated Denial of Existence", RFC 5155, March 2008.
[RFC5246]	Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, August 2008.
[RFC5936]	Lewis, E. and A. Hoenes, "DNS Zone Transfer Protocol (AXFR)", RFC 5936, June 2010.
[RFC6347]	Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, January 2012.
[RFC6644]	Evans, D., Droms, R. and S. Jiang, "Rebind Capability in DHCPv6 Reconfigure Messages", RFC 6644, July 2012.
[RFC6762]	Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "Multicast DNS", RFC 6762, February 2013.
[RFC6763]	Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "DNS-Based Service Discovery", RFC 6763, February 2013.
[RFC7296]	Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., Eronen, P. and T. Kivinen, "Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)", STD 79, RFC 7296, October 2014.

13.2. Informational References

[I-D.howard-dnsop-ip6rdns]	Howard, L., "Reverse DNS in IPv6 for Internet Service Providers", Internet-Draft draft-howard-dnsop-ip6rdns-00, June 2014.
[I-D.ietf-dnssd-requirements]	Lynn, K., Cheshire, S., Blanchet, M. and D. Migault, "Requirements for Scalable DNS-SD/mDNS Extensions", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-dnssd-requirements-04, October 2014.
[I-D.ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options]	Migault, D., Cloetens, W., Griffiths, C. and R. Weber, "DHCP Options for Homenet Naming Architecture", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options-00, September 2014.
[RFC1033]	Lottor, M., "Domain administrators operations guide", RFC 1033, November 1987.
[RFC7344]	Kumari, W., Gudmundsson, O. and G. Barwood, "Automating DNSSEC Delegation Trust Maintenance", RFC 7344, September 2014.
[RFC7368]	Chown, T., Arkko, J., Brandt, A., Troan, O. and J. Weil, "IPv6 Home Networking Architecture Principles", RFC 7368, October 2014.

Appendix A. Document Change Log

[RFC Editor: This section is to be removed before publication]

-05:

*Clarifying on handling different views:

- 1:

How the CPE may be involved in the resolution and responds without necessarily requesting the Public Masters (and eventually the Hidden Master)

- 2:

How to handle local scope resolution that is link-local, site-local and NAT IP addresses as well as Private domain names that the administrator does not want to publish outside the home network.

Adding a Privacy Considerations Section

Clarification on pro/cons outsourcing zone-signing

Documenting how to handle reverse zones

Adding reference to RFC 2308

-04:

*Clarifications on zone signing

*Rewording

*Adding section on different views

*architecture clarifications

-03:

*Simon's comments taken into consideration

*Adding SOA, PTR considerations

*Removing DNSSEC performance paragraphs on low power devices

*Adding SIG(0) as a mechanism for authenticating the servers

*Goals clarification: the architecture described in the document 1) does not describe new protocols, and 2) can be adapted to specific cases for advance users.

-02:

*remove interfaces: "Public Authoritative Server Naming Interface" is replaced by "Public Authoritative Master(s)". "Public Authoritative Server Management Interface" is replaced by "Public Authoritative Name Server Set".

-01.3:

*remove the authoritative / resolver services of the CPE. Implementation dependent

*remove interactions with mdns and dhcp. Implementation dependent.

*remove considerations on low powered devices

*remove position toward homenet arch

*remove problem statement section

-01.2:

* add a CPE description to show that the architecture can fit CPEs

* specification of the architecture for very low powered devices.

* integrate mDNS and DHCP interactions with the Homenet Naming Architecture.

* Restructuring the draft. 1) We start from the homenet-arch draft to derive a Naming Architecture, then 2) we show why CPE need mechanisms that do not expose them to the Internet, 3) we describe the mechanisms.

* I remove the terminology and expose it in the figures A and B.

* remove the Front End Homenet Naming Architecture to Homenet Naming

-01:

* Added C. Griffiths as co-author.

* Updated section 5.4 and other sections of draft to update section on Hidden Master / Slave functions with CPE as Hidden Master/Homenet Server.

* For next version, address functions of MDNS within Homenet Lan and publishing details northbound via Hidden Master.

-00: First version published.

Authors' Addresses