Thank you for clarifying what you meant Ted. Cheers Terry
On 18/07/2016, 11:44 PM, "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. > > >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. >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
