> On Jul 5, 2017, at 1:14 PM, Ted Lemon <mel...@fugue.com> wrote: > > On Jul 5, 2017, at 11:46 AM, <mal.hub...@bt.com <mailto:mal.hub...@bt.com>> > <mal.hub...@bt.com <mailto:mal.hub...@bt.com>> wrote: >> Looking for some thought from you guys. As an operator with millions of >> devices using .home in their Residential Gateway CPE, Im interested, >> does/should/could this draft provide some recommendations about how to >> migrate its CPE from ".home" to ".home.arpa" ? > > I think this is out of scope for this document. My personal advice, worth > what you paid, is that you not change anything until you have a positive > reason to do so: don't change it just because this document says to change > it. What would motivate changing it would be if ICANN allocates the name in > some future gTLD process. At present they seem to believe that it would > cause too many problems, but that could change: there are definitely > organizations that would like to have the name.
FWIW, I’m not sure I fully agree with this definition of relevant changes, particularly if you care about DNSSEC. There is not now, and IMO there is not likely ever to be, an unsigned delegation in the root zone for .home to enable local DNSSEC resolution. There is not now, but likely soon to be (although Ted’s right the relevant request hasn’t been made yet) an unsigned delegation in the .arpa zone for .home.arpa to enable local DNSSEC resolution. An interest in DNSSEC would argue for changing such names as soon as the .home.arpa delegation is in place. Suzanne
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
