On Sat 14 Dec 2019 at 13:36:28 (-0000), Curt wrote: > On 2019-12-14, David Wright <deb...@lionunicorn.co.uk> wrote: > > On Fri 13 Dec 2019 at 19:33:51 (-0500), Jape Person wrote: > >> Hi folks. Did I miss something? > > > > Perhaps a couple of references: > > https://features.icann.org/addressing-new-gtld-program-applications-corp-home-and-mail > > which points out that any of .home, .mail and .corp are ideal for the > > domain name of a home LAN, and RFC 6762 on Multicast DNS which > > explains why .local is not a good choice. > > I'm trying to fathom why .home would remain ideal for home LAN users in > light of RFC 8375, which replaces the previously advised '.home' with > 'home.arpa' as the default domain name for homenets, the former being > known to often leak out to the root name servers. > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8375
As I see it, what you're looking for in choosing a domain name at home is a name¹ that isn't already a TLD on the Internet, and is not going to become one in the future. In addition, you don't want something that's going to become the domain name² for some new protocol that's around the corner. My understanding of RFC 8375 is that .home got hit as a category ², but that this was seen as a mistake which this RFC corrected. As for leaking out to the root name servers, this is the reason that ICANN chose not to issue .home, .mail and .corp as TLDs, but instead to refund any money taken from organisations trying to register such domains. That intention is what makes them good candidates for being future-proof in category ¹. > Or does RFC 8378[5] only apply to toasters and the like (what will they > think of next)? I think the idea is that toasters and so on will configure themselves on homenet, but this means that people doing their own configuration have to steer clear rather than get in their way. AIUI that is why mDNS resulted in pushing .local into category ², to the dismay of the many who thought .local to be a good choice under category ¹. Cheers, David.