> On Jul 23, 2016, at 5:17 PM 7/23/16, Juliusz Chroboczek > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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. > > Ted, > > Is this domain meant to be specific to HNCP, or is it a generic site-local > domain for home networks? If the former, then I'm mostly okay with .homenet. > If the latter, then I amn't.
Good question. Seems like we need to come to consensus on a reasonably formal definition of the desired behavior for ".new-label", and then we can decide whether that definition is just appropriate for a home network or for other scenarios, as well. For example, if the scope of the "site" used for site-local evaluation depends on the network edge definition from HNCP, then ".new-local" might only be appropriate for deployment scenarios that include HNCP. - Ralph > > (Do you think we could get .tbd? That would be the best way to confuse > implementers.) > > -- Juliusz > > _______________________________________________ > 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
