Re: [homenet] RFC 7788-bis (and also draft-cheshire-homenet-dot-home-03)

BTW, to do your excellent disquisition on this topic a tiny bit more justice, I think the point where you and Stuart probably disagree is that you want to take into account networks that will use homenet router technology that are already using .home for something else, whereas Stuart doesn't

Re: [homenet] RFC 7788-bis (and also draft-cheshire-homenet-dot-home-03)

Violent agreement here. Hence, ".homenet". :) On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 09:37:06AM +0100, Ray Bellis wrote: > > > Whilst there may be "undermined" ways it's being used, it's clear that > >

Re: [homenet] RFC 7788-bis (and also draft-cheshire-homenet-dot-home-03)

Dear colleagues, On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 09:37:06AM +0100, Ray Bellis wrote: > Whilst there may be "undermined" ways it's being used, it's clear that > most of the ways it's used are just because some vendors and sites > decided to use that for their default *site local* domain which makes it >