On Nov 28, 2012, at 5:35 PM, Ted Lemon <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. You mean like DynDNS for example? > >> 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. Points at Dyn and afraid.org and 3322.org^w^w and no-ip… <runs away, giggling…> W > >> 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 > -- A. No Q. Is it sensible to top-post? _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
