This is out of scope for simple naming anyway, so I don't think we need to answer this now.
On Fri, May 25, 2018, 12:24 Michael Thomas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 5/25/18 10:34 AM, Ted Lemon wrote: > > the ability to publish services on the Internet" seems like a > > reasonable first attempt at specifying that, but I agree that it's > > insufficient. Do you have a theory to offer? What I think I meant > > by this was: > > > > - Has a globally-scoped delegation for publishing names (a forward tree) > > - Optionally with DNSSEC > > - Has one or more globally-scoped delegations for publishing records > > referring to globally-scoped IP addresses on the network (a reverse tree) > > - Optionally with DNSSEC > > - Ability to specify which services are visible from outside, either > > manually or automatically (e.g. with mud). > > - Ability to acquire ACME certs? This is probably out of scope-ish, > > but ACME does interact with the naming system. This is one of my > > primary motivations for caring about the advanced naming architecture, > > TBH—it makes it possible to secure the gateway web UI. > > > > > > Optional to implement or optional to deploy? > > Mike > > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet >
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
