The document as written causes some harm, but less harm than updating it. The text in the document as written as to how domain names are resolved is not very good, and really really needs to be clarified with a detailed document that explains how name resolution works on the homenet.
But I think we all accept that there's going to have to be a special-use top-level name allocated. That name is either going to be '.home' or '.homenet' as far as I can tell. Andrew made a very good case for why it shouldn't be .home. I agree with him, but not strongly enough that I would kick up a fuss of the consensus was to allocate .home anyway. I also don't mind the two-stage process if IETF leadership is willing to do what I asked at the mic and actively keep the debate on track. But it's really a three-stage process: do the erratum as an update, then do the 6761 allocation of either .home or .homenet, then do the document that explains how it all works. We need step two to happen _soon_ or we are in trouble. Step 1 may be necessary and highly motivating because of the layer 9 problems that this mistake caused, but if we only do step 1 and then trail off on step 2, the effect in the market is either going to be that everybody uses .home anyway, or else that everybody uses something different. Neither of these outcomes are good outcomes.
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
