> On Jul 18, 2016, at 3:44 PM 7/18/16, Ted Lemon <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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.
I agree with Ted 100% about the text in the document regarding name resolution. In my opinion, the proper organization for the specifications here would be to ensure that the details of name resolution in homenet are correctly specified in Ted's document or another separate document, with text in the HNCP document the specifies how the requisite configuration information is carried in HNCP. > 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. I agree with Ted 100% here, as well. We need to solve immediately the specific problem that .home was either delegated as a DNS TLD without appropriate process, or was designated as a Special Use Name without an associated entry in the registry. (In my opinion, RFC 7788 is not clear about which of those two buckets ".home" falls into.) Then we need to specify the behavior of the new label, which I assume will be a Special use name, and add it to the Special Use Names registry as quickly as possible. - Ralph > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
