On Dec 12, 2016, at 4:56 PM, james woodyatt <j...@google.com> wrote:
> I would strongly prefer that we avoid the risks above by using a 
> special-purpose subdomain of a gTLD owned by IETF. I don’t really care which 
> gTLD we use, and if “arpa” is really the only reasonable choice, then so be 
> it. However, I can imagine a world where the Working Group decides that 
> “arpa” is unacceptable for whatever reason and decides that it’s better to 
> wait until IETF has another domain with a better name. And I’m not ready to 
> tell them I think that would be a very bad idea.

Remember that if we allocated some subdomain like .arpa, we would face a 
different procedural problem with ICANN that would almost certainly take a 
similar amount of time to resolve.

From a process perspective, trying to get ICANN to do an insecure delegation 
for .homenet is actually a worthwhile thing to do; the challenge is that it 
introduces some substantial potential for delay and uncertainty.   So does your 
non-.arpa TLD idea, so from our perspective there is no difference, whether or 
not there may be some difference for the IETF as a whole.   We will almost 
certainly be visiting that problem space in the future.

That said, if expedient is what the WG wants, .arpa is what’s expedient.   As I 
say, I am not leaning strongly in either direction.   I think that a strong 
argument for one choice or the other would either have to do with .homenet 
being technically better for some reason, or with the delay being unacceptable. 
  Right now I don’t think we’re under that kind of time pressure, which is why 
I’m not more exercised about the possibility of a long delay in getting 
.homenet delegated.


_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

Reply via email to