> On Jun 9, 2016, at 1:35 PM 6/9/16, Markus Stenberg <[email protected]> 
> wrote:
> 
> On 9.6.2016, at 19.32, Ray Bellis <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 09/06/2016 16:17, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
>>> I've just fixed shncpd so that it interoperates with hnetd again (by
>>> following the IANA registry).  But what's to be done longer term?  Do we
>>> change the IANA registry again, or should somebody publish an erratum to
>>> RFC 7788.
>> To clarify for other readers, since it's hard to spot - the IANA
>> registry reflects what was specified in the IANA Considerations of the
>> document, but the diagrams in §10.2.2 and §10.2.3 have the option values
>> the wrong way around.
> 
> I failed once today at spotting the difference too (although noticed it 
> earlier at some point as well). Too much work I guess.
> 
>> So yes, we should probably publish an erratum, but please leave it with
>> the Chairs and our AD for a short while.  Per the errata already raised
>> regarding the unintended de-facto reservation of ".home" for HNCP we're
>> expecting to need to put out a 7788-bis very soon anyway.
> 
> Is that RFC6something process for getting gTLDs still blocked by ICANN or 
> whoever who is simultaneously celebrating their 1000th $$$ gTLD?

As Ray mentioned, the RFC 6761 process was suspended after the publication of 
RFC 7686 and the designation of .onion as a Special Use Domain Name, due to the 
length of the discussion in dnsop and the IETF as a whole about whether .  
There is interest in clarifying or extending the RFC 6761 process to reduce the 
length of the discussions related to the designation of other names as Special 
Use Domain Names.
> 
> The specification (AFAIK) does not really require all implementations to 
> agree on the same network-wide default (as it is not omitted from DDZ TLVs, 
> the sub-zones are fully qualified), but I do not see any other sensible 
> default than the one we use now. So I am not sure what this will change in 
> practice.

What will change is the official standardization of .home as an implicit 
Special-Use Domain Name, which has not been put through the RFC 6761 process.

- Ralph

> 
> Cheers,
> 
> -Markus
> _______________________________________________
> homenet mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

Reply via email to