Am I to interpret that response as a "no" to the question whether anyone
has spoken to ICANN? Which would mean that the rejection of .home is
based on an assumption?
bfn, Wouter
On 18/07/16 18:03, Ted Lemon wrote:
It could be seen as collusion. Remember, lawyers are much more
creative in finding vulns than all but the most paranoid of security
geeks. :)
On Jul 18, 2016 17:49, "Wouter Cloetens"
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 18/07/16 17:01, Ted Lemon wrote:
Yup. In terms of minimizing risk to the IETF, switching to
.homenet is expedient--that's why I put it in the Homenet
Naming/Service Discovery Architecture doc. Perhaps some homenet
participants aren't aware of the issues surrounding this.
The reason we are getting so much top-down push from IETF
leadership on this is not that IETF leadership are being
political--it's that there's a real cost to the IETF if one of
the GTLD people decides that we have taken a name for which they
paid an application fee. I apologize for glossing over this in
my earlier response.
I'm a bit confused about this. Although Dothome Ltd. paid an
application fee, they failed the initial evaluation. ICANN
ultimately concluded in 2013 that .home was high risk, or "dead"
in the terminology used in an article to which ICANN links.
I can't reach this at the moment:
https://icannwiki.com/.home
So here's the Google cache:
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:OdSc1uEzj_cJ:https://icannwiki.com/.home+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=de
So, why would ICANN's gTLD people not be open to declaring .home
to be off their list, and open for redefinition by IETF?
If people are interested in better understanding this problem, I
encourage you to read this:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tldr-sutld-ps-02#section-3
" o IETF and ICANN independently have remit to assign names out of
the namespace that Internet Names represent; a formal coordination
process does not exist."
Can't that be fixed? Has anyone tried to speak to / negotiate with
ICANN?
You can get more background by reading section 4 as well. Bear
in mind, s/.local/.home/ in section 4.2.4.
On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 4:16 PM, Andrew Sullivan
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 03:33:28PM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson
wrote:
>
> .HOME has not been handed out by ICANN yet
There are several applications for home in the root zone. To
my mind,
that means that home has been claimed as being inside the
global DNS
context, and therefore is not available under RFC 6761.
Best regards,
A
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
--
Chief Home Gateway Architect SoftAtHome http://www.softathome.com/
https://www.linkedin.com/in/wcloetens Vaartdijk 3/B701, B-3018 Wijgmaal
Tel: +32-16-852010 Mobile: +32-492-277790 Conf. phone: +32-16-852097
This message and any attachments are confidential, intended solely for
the addressees and are SoftAtHome’s ownership.
Any unauthorized use or dissemination is prohibited. If you are not the
intended addressee of this message, please cancel it immediately and
inform the sender.
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
