Don,
On 10/07/2012 17:50, Don Sturek wrote:
> Hi Brian,
>
> The complication to what you wrote below is the current sale of internet
> suffixes by ICANN. It will no longer be clear that .<uniqueString> would
> not conflict with another suffix on the wider internet (or could in the
> future).
>
> I think, in the current environment, we will be lucky to get allocation of
> a fixed string like <.wellknownString> for free in local home
> environments. We (the Homenet group) should decide on a useful, unique
> suffix for local services and see if we can get that reserved by ICANN for
> local services (and not later sold).
<politics>
I don't think we should worry unduly about this. The IETF/IANA MoU allows
the IETF to define TLDs for technical purposes, and instruct IANA accordingly.
A family of TLDs for local use is clearly within that scope.
</politics>
On 10/07/2012 18:01, Michael Thomas wrote:
> ...Though it's a little unfriendly to type in a FQDN for a
> ULA-like-statistically-unique name, right? It would be sort of nice
> to finesse this.
Good point. Maybe we can use some kind of wild card trick.
Brian
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
