On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 12:13:12AM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: > > - why do you need a TLD? Why won't a SLD work? > > We want something short and memorable. ".co.uk" is short and memorable. > ".univ-paris-diderot.fr" is not.
Why? This is, I suspect, part of the issue: it seems that we have some assumptions about the use of these names, and I'm not entirely sure what they are. It is not obvious to me that "short and memorable" is a requirement that falls out of section 3.7 of RFC 7368. > > - why do you need a word from natural language? > > We want something short and memorable. ".home" is short and memorable. > ".in-addr.arpa" is not. "Something short and memorable" is again a requirement here that isn't obviously imposed by RFC 7368. But worse, "home" is actually only memorable for people who know what that word is in English, and it's only even useful to people who use Latin characters. It's not like internationalization considerations in naming are unknown (and it would appear that if there is a requirement for natural language strings then we haven't attended to RFC 2277 section 6). Since the point of this is to be intuitive for users who aren't professional administrators, I guess I assumed that it also has to be intuitive for such users who happen not to speak and read English. I'm prepared to admit my assumption may be wrong, but if so I'd like the WG to think about that first. > flexibility is not needed or not desirable. In the particular case of the > choice of the top-level domain, there is agreement in this WG that having > a standardised default is more robust, more predictable, and easier to > understand than using a distributed consensus algorithm. It appears to me that an interpretation equally consistent with the results of the WG is that the WG proceeded with a simplifying assumption and more or less ignored the details implicit in this issue, partly because the WG had already decided mostly to kick the issue of naming down the road a little. I appreciate that it's annoying to discover that there's a problem quite this late, and it's super annoying that we have to cope with it quickly. And I take my full share of the blame: I missed this, and should not have. But cope with it we must, because the use of home. or any other name without having answered the questions in section 5 of RFC 6761, and without registering a well-known domain name in the DNS, is bad for the network and a threat to the very users we're supposed to be serving with this effort. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan [email protected] _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
