Re: [homenet] alternatives to .home

Yes, exactly. Thanks for putting it so succinctly, Suzanne. :) On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 5:31 PM, Suzanne Woolf wrote: > Hi, > > I’d like to gently suggest that if the long-running discussion on the > topic of special use names in DNSOP has taught us anything, it’s

Re: [homenet] alternatives to .home

You propose that .domus and .home both be possible presented names for the same object: the home network. Users will use many devices on the home network; each of these devices will have to display the same name. If the actual name is the same, this is easy. If the UI has to make it look

Re: [homenet] alternatives to .home

>> - how does software running on my laptop, which just connected to an >> unknown network, find out what is the local translation of "home"? > It doesn't. It uses HNCP. Please describe exactly how my laptop (which doesn't run HNCP) finds out the right domain. Please describe how an HNCP router

Re: [homenet] alternatives to .home

Hi, I’d like to gently suggest that if the long-running discussion on the topic of special use names in DNSOP has taught us anything, it’s that the behavior people would like to have from DNS resolvers, users, etc. for a name is of primary importance. The choices of name resolution protocol,

Re: [homenet] alternatives to .home

> Those who come from cultures that speak languages descended from older or > different roots might challenge the universality of that proposal. I strongly object to Sumerian cuneiform. > I don't think there is a correct answer to this. .local has worked, which is > the best we can hope for with

Re: [homenet] alternatives to .home

Ted Lemon wrote: > model that the user forms will be wrong. If .home and .domus are I don't propose that they be the same. I'm suggesting that the HNCP will pick one or the other (or some other translation) is picked as the single choice. > It's much better not to do

Re: [homenet] alternatives to .home

On 16-Jun-16 19:13, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: > (The right choice for Homenet, of course, is ".domus". Although, now that > I think about it, RFC 1034 doesn't mention whether domain names are in the > nominative or the locative, so perhaps we should also consider ".domo".) I think there is an

Re: [homenet] alternatives to .home

If the name is not consistent wherever the user encounters it, the model that the user forms will be wrong. If .home and .domus are treated as equal by the system, but presented inconsistently, then the user will form a mental model that sees the two as distinct. And, to be clear, any time you

Re: [homenet] alternatives to .home

Ted Lemon wrote: > Michael, the reason to have a consistent name is that the name _will_ > show up in UI elements, and therefore _should_ behave in a > comprehensible manner. The IETF tends to be understandably dismissive > of the end-user's capacity to

Re: [homenet] alternatives to .home

Michael, the reason to have a consistent name is that the name _will_ show up in UI elements, and therefore _should_ behave in a comprehensible manner. The IETF tends to be understandably dismissive of the end-user's capacity to correctly model the functioning of the network, but we should not

Re: [homenet] alternatives to .home

Edmon Chung wrote: > e.g. 2 character non-countrycodes: QM QN QO QP QQ QR QS QT QU QV QW QX > QY QZ XA XB XC XD XE XF XG XH XI XJ XK XL XM XN XO XP XQ XR XS XT XU XV > XW XX XY XZ .xh .xn seem like the best. -- Michael Richardson ,

Re: [homenet] alternatives to .home

Andrew Sullivan wrote: >> .local has worked > But mostly because ordinary humans never see it. That's what's not > clear to me. I think so. I also think that it shows up in logs and ... > Is this a name that will mostly be hidden by user-interface

Re: [homenet] alternatives to .home

Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: > Let us please not open this particular can of worms: > - how does software running on my laptop, which just connected to an > unknown network, find out what is the local translation of "home"? It doesn't. It uses HNCP.

Re: [homenet] RFC 7788-bis

On 17/06/2016 02:00, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > … it is not. We know both that (1) it is already in use in the wild > in undetermined ways and (2) that some people have spent a bunch of > money attempting to get it delegated to them in the global DNS. We > should not, IMO, even for a moment

Re: [homenet] alternatives to .home

On 17.6.2016, at 10.37, Pierre Pfister wrote: > I think this is a key point indeed. > > mDNS works really hard to *not* show any name to the user. > I would like it to be the same for homenet, but I am not sure we have a > complete solution for no-name multi-link

Re: [homenet] alternatives to .home

On 6/16/2016 9:47 PM, Edmon Chung wrote: > the ones identified are allocated for user specific use so they cannot > become country codes. And the citation you give (the Wikipedia entry) indicates how some of them are being used - not for countries, but in other ways that could interfere with