> On Nov 15, 2016, at 11:08 PM, Ted Lemon <[email protected]> wrote: > > Great comments, Ralph—thanks!
You’re welcome. I noticed a typo in my e-mail - my last comment applies to question 6. - Ralph > > 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
