Great comments, Ralph--thanks! On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Ralph Droms <[email protected]> wrote: > I’ve read draft-ietf-homenet-dot-00. If I’ve got it right, the concept and > text in draft-ietf-homenet-dot-00 are modeled after the behavior specified in > RFC 6303 and the text in RFC 6761that specifies the SUDN registry entries for > the SUDNs defined in RFC 6303. Seems like a good starting point for > draft-ietf-homenet-dot-00. > > I think the document can be advanced quickly; here’s some input I hope is > helpful... > > I suggest that the paragraph in the Introduction that motivates the change > from .home to .homenet be augmented or replaced with the reasons Ray listed > in his e-mail (included below). > > I also have a few clarifications and other fairly minor editorial suggestions… > > In section 3, the response to item 3 in the SUDN reservation considerations > could be clarified by specifying that any queries in the .homenet zone must > be forwarded to a DNS service as configured by explicitly by HNCP or other > appropriate local configuration mechanism coordinated with .homenet > resolution, as opposed to just “configured”. A manually configured entry for > some external server is “configured”, but not configured in a helpful way. > > Given that the existence of draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis, it would be > helpful (at least, I would find it helpful) to use the agreed common > terminology; for example “recursive resolver” instead of “Caching DNS > servers”. > > In the answer for question 5, it might help the reader to specify which zones > the “authoritative servers” are authoritative for. > > “DNS server operator” is likely a term of art in the answer for question, but > it’s not clear to me which operators and servers are referred to, here. > Although passive voice should be avoided, it might be appropriate to simply > write “DNS servers outside a home network should not be configured to be > authoritative for .homenet. > > - Ralph > > >> On Nov 15, 2016, at 8:40 PM, Ray Bellis <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 16/11/2016 09:53, Margaret Cullen wrote: >>> >>> What is the reasoning for using .homenet as the Homenet Domain, instead of >>> registering and using .home? >>> >> >> <chair hat partly on> >> >> 1. we cannot be sure that using .home is consistent with the >> existing (ab)uses >> >> [e.g. BT in the UK already have about 5M CPE devices deployed >> that are not "Homenet" devices but do use ".home" as their >> default domain name. We don't know how those would interact] >> >> 2. ICANN is in receipt of about a dozen applications for ".home", >> and some of those applicants no doubt have deeper pockets than >> the IETF does should they decide to litigate >> >> NB: Whilst ICANN has previously said that they won't actually delegate >> ".home" to any of those applicatants because of the amount of existing >> (ab)use of that name that's visible at the DNS root servers, they are >> under pressure from the applicants collectively to reverse that position. >> >> Ray >> >> _______________________________________________ >> homenet mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet > > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
