On Nov 28, 2012, at 5:10 PM, Lee Howard <[email protected]> wrote: > Without explicit caution, the CPE might populate .local for FQDN. Yes, I > assumed that > everyone knew that residential users rarely have their own domain name, and > would have > to get it from their ISP. I don't think ISPs especially want to provide > this--there's no gain > and lots of potential pain.
I think that there's minimal potential pain if it's done right, and it's something they could charge extra for, but that's pretty much the only scenario in which I expect ISPs to do this. OTOH, it seems like a pretty obvious market for a third party. > We might want to check with some ISPs and see if they would be interested in > consuming > such a spec. I doubt many would--it's something to troubleshoot that offers > little value to > the residential user. Actually I'd have to disagree with this. It offers significant value to the residential user in that their site can now have a globally-unique name, which is a problem we've discussed at some length in homenet, and which remains an unsolved problem. > Then it would be healthy for us to collaborate! Maybe we can drive > compromise > positions before making the WG(s) thrash. Sure! :) _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
