On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Michael Richardson <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>> "Tim" == Tim Chown <[email protected]> writes: > >> Sorry, couldn't resist... > > Tim> Well let's hope ICANN don't cash in on .site while xmdns is > Tim> being defined... > > That was my major comment about the document. > I don't like .site. Yeah, it's generic enough to work everywhere. > But, I think it will be confusing to the public. I think that .home > would be better, but all of these are also rather english specific. > Is .local confusing to the public? I'm not sure they ever see it (unless they're running Wireshark). What they *do* see is a list of instance names for a given service (as, for example, when adding a printer from a list).
Just like .local, .site defines a behavior for an xmDNS aware resolver. That is to multicast the DNS query to port 5353 on FF05::FB. .site SHOULD NOT be used to name a local unicast DNS TLD. If DNS is deployed in your homenet, it seems the cleanest thing is to get yourself a domain or have your ISP delegate you a zone. If some random name is used for your TLD, then perhaps the term "FQDN" should not be applied to a service in that context. -K- > Maybe there is an esperanto or lojban speaker that could give us a > better four letter word. (cause, you know, it will be used in the > context of my f#(#$ .*#$@# is busted!) > > -- > ] He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life! | firewalls > [ > ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON |net > architect[ > ] [email protected] http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device > driver[ > Kyoto Plus: watch the video <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzx1ycLXQSE> > then sign the petition. > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
