Hi, Response to a couple messages at once:
On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 08:09:24PM +0100, Ray Bellis wrote: > It's RFC 6761, and the process is suspended (AIUI) by the IESG. […] > Personally I still think that ".home" would make a fine choice for HNCP > (except for the language bias issue) but if is to be the choice we need > to follow due process. On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 03:35:16PM -0400, Ralph Droms wrote: > 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 […] > 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. I just want to make sure that the basic fact doesn't get lost here, because I think some people may be noticing what I think are the wrong things in the above and other messages in this thread. RFC 6761 specifies what you have to do if you're going to carve out part of the Internet's global name space for protocol-specific needs. There are indeed some concerns about how that works, particularly at the top of the global name space (i.e. to create a TLD-like-thing, even if it's never supposed to appear in the DNS). But the real problem here is that RFC 7788 doesn't do any of what is in RFC 6761 _at all_, despite apparently attempting to reserve a name in the namespace. I am one of the people who failed to catch this fault before publication of 7788, and for that I apologise. But let us not misunderstand that this is some sort of ICANN or IESG desire to throw sand in gears. The IANA considerations of RFC 7788 is wrong: it doesn't include the necessary reservation request. That's the bug. I will note, also, that AFAICT the IESG has not issued a blanket policy about 6761 requests. It is worried about how to do duch reservations in the root name space. There is an already-functioning namespace that is fully capable of handling these kinds of requests, and one that is under IAB control: arpa. There is ample evidence that it already works: ipv4only.arpa. Rather than getting twisted 'round a TLD axle, it strikes me that there is a quick and easy path forward, and one that appears impervious to application fees. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
