Re: [homenet] RFC 7788 and the IANA registry conflict

On Jun 9, 2016, at 3:44 PM, Ralph Droms wrote: > >> On Jun 9, 2016, at 1:45 PM 6/9/16, Juliusz Chroboczek >> wrote: >> >>> The specification (AFAIK) does not really require all implementations to >>> agree on the same network-wide

Re: [homenet] RFC 7788 and the IANA registry conflict

> On Jun 9, 2016, at 3:09 PM 6/9/16, Ray Bellis wrote: > > > > On 09/06/2016 18:35, Markus Stenberg wrote: > >> Is that RFC6something process for getting gTLDs still blocked by >> ICANN or whoever who is simultaneously celebrating their 1000th $$$ >> gTLD? > > It's RFC

Re: [homenet] RFC 7788 and the IANA registry conflict

> On Jun 9, 2016, at 1:45 PM 6/9/16, Juliusz Chroboczek > wrote: > >> The specification (AFAIK) does not really require all implementations to >> agree on the same network-wide default (as it is not omitted from DDZ >> TLVs, the sub-zones are fully qualified),

Re: [homenet] RFC 7788 and the IANA registry conflict

> On Jun 9, 2016, at 1:35 PM 6/9/16, Markus Stenberg > wrote: > > On 9.6.2016, at 19.32, Ray Bellis wrote: >> On 09/06/2016 16:17, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: >>> I've just fixed shncpd so that it interoperates with hnetd again (by >>> following the

Re: [homenet] RFC 7788 and the IANA registry conflict

On 09/06/2016 18:35, Markus Stenberg wrote: > Is that RFC6something process for getting gTLDs still blocked by > ICANN or whoever who is simultaneously celebrating their 1000th $$$ > gTLD? It's RFC 6761, and the process is suspended (AIUI) by the IESG. The history and politics of that are

Re: [homenet] RFC 7788 and the IANA registry conflict

On 09/06/2016 16:17, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: > I've just fixed shncpd so that it interoperates with hnetd again (by > following the IANA registry). But what's to be done longer term? Do we > change the IANA registry again, or should somebody publish an erratum to > RFC 7788. To clarify for