[homenet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-homenet-routing-consensus-call-01.txt
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Home Networking Working Group of the IETF. Title : Homenet Routing Consensus Call Authors : Ray Bellis Mark Townsley Filename: draft-ietf-homenet-routing-consensus-call-01.txt Pages : 4 Date: 2016-01-21 Abstract: In order to support arbitrary network topologies and multi-homing the IETF Homenet Architecture [RFC7368] requires that a routing protocol operates inside each home network. For interoperability reasons it is necessary for there be a single "mandatory to implement" routing protocol. With the Homenet Working Group unable to reach clear consensus on which protocol that should be the Working Group Chairs (with the support of the Internet Area Director) declared rough consensus that the chosen protocol is BABEL [RFC6126]. This document (not intended for publication as an RFC) serves as an additional record of that decision. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-homenet-routing-consensus-call/ There's also a htmlized version available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-homenet-routing-consensus-call-01 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-homenet-routing-consensus-call-01 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] Homenet Naming Architecture
On 21/01/2016 18:36, Douglas Otis wrote: ... > The TLD '.lo' looks somewhat like a ccTLD AFAIK, two letter TLDs are all implicitly reserved since any of them might pop up in ISO 3166 in the future. I'm not enough of an ICANNologist to point to where this is established (to my surprise, it is not established by RFC 1591). LO is currently unassigned in ISO 3166, but of course that could change as a result of some future geopolitical event. So it would be really foolish of the IETF to consider .lo at all. Brian ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
