On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 03:22:57AM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > I don't get that. There's nothing about that in RFC 6761, which is mainly > very boring stuff that could be written up for this case, regardless > of the actual domain name. It's our own self-imposed bureaucracy.
Question 7 asks how registries and registrars should react to this name. Given that the home TLD is in-process in the ICANN delegation procedures from the root zone, it is logically possible that at any moment ICANN could change its administrative procedures and home would get delegated. So the answer to question 7 cannot be but ambiguous under these circumstances. To me, that means that the requirements of 6761 can't possibly be met by home, and therefore home can't be allocated under special use. This is the point that Jari made and that I was going to make at the mic: this isn't a mere political problem, but an actual functional one under our own procedures. There is just no way we could allocate home under 6761 right now, without a very strong statement from ICANN that it would be ok. I also argue (see my note from yesterday) that generalizing from "people seem to be doing somehting like this with this name, because I talked to a guy from $vendor and he said so" to "using this as a protocol switch in a protocol will not have a problem" seems to me to require a pretty big leap. > RFC 6761 is one thing, but RFC 2860 is another. Under note (a) > to clause 4.3 of that MoU, the IETF can direct IANA to reserve > .$WHATEVER$. for technical use. I strongly agree -- that part is the very reason why 6761 was even possible, in my opinion. > Doing so for .home. would be entertaining, of course. Doing so > for .homenet. seems plausible. I know it can be entertainment to watch those films where someone foolishly got into a car that was then swept over Niagara Falls. A -- Andrew Sullivan [email protected] _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
