On 17/06/2016 02:00, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> … it is not. We know both that (1) it is already in use in the wild > in undetermined ways and (2) that some people have spent a bunch of > money attempting to get it delegated to them in the global DNS. We > should not, IMO, even for a moment consider using a name with > well-known conflicting properties. <nohat> Whilst there may be "undermined" ways it's being used, it's clear that most of the ways it's used are just because some vendors and sites decided to use that for their default *site local* domain which makes it completely consistent with what we need. I therefore completely disagree on point #1 - officially allocating .home for this purpose and having it "sunk" by default on internet facing recursive resolvers would IMHO actually *help* with the traffic hitting the root and reduce leakage of it. As for #2, yeah, that's hard, but it seems ICANN won't do anything about ".home" because of #1 anyway, but they seemed stalled on outright rejecting it and have said (AFAICR) that an RFC 6761 registration would allow them to reject (and refund) those applications. Ray _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
