Re: [homenet] [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-12

Hi, I used the web form and expected that the boilerplate would automatically be added. This explains why the introduction may look a bit directive or dry. To clarify the scope of my reviews, I am adding the boilerplate below. I have reviewed this document as part of the security

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

>> If the fast connection's DNS server replies after a delay or not at all, >> and the slow connection's DNS server replies in a timely manner, using >> a smart resolver across all the available DNS servers will improve latenc > Yes, but if your fast connection is lossy, it's not fast. Lossy

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

> I don't think anything we are talking about here would actually help > with that. If the fast connection's DNS server replies after a delay or not at all, and the slow connection's DNS server replies in a timely manner, using a smart resolver across all the available DNS servers will improve

Re: [homenet] homenet "no host changes" assumption and DNS

Hi, On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 01:21:06PM +, STARK, BARBARA H wrote: > Currently, there is no host that expects to use .home.arpa (or any other > domain) inside the premises. I don't think the "or any other domain" claim is true. At the very least, _lots_ of hosts are already using local. in

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

El 18 ag 2017, a les 5:40, Juliusz Chroboczek va escriure: > If the fast connection's DNS server replies after a delay or not at all, > and the slow connection's DNS server replies in a timely manner, using > a smart resolver across all the available DNS servers will improve latenc

[homenet] homenet "no host changes" assumption and DNS

No hat. I'm proposing something radical here. Let the tomatoes fly. I'd like to question whether we really need to maintain the "no changes to the host" assumption when it comes to architecting homenet DNS. Currently, there is no host that expects to use .home.arpa (or any other domain) inside

Re: [homenet] homenet "no host changes" assumption and DNS

I think that what you are proposing here is great, except that I don't think we actually _need_ to go out of charter on this. I think that what Toke has been advocating can be worked into the framework you are describing, so that you and I! get what we want, and Toke gets what he wants. > El

Re: [homenet] homenet "no host changes" assumption and DNS

Ted Lemon writes: > I think that what you are proposing here is great, except that I don't > think we actually _need_ to go out of charter on this. I think that > what Toke has been advocating can be worked into the framework you are > describing, so that you and I! get what

Re: [homenet] tuscles and conflicting goals / trust with draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

STARK, BARBARA H wrote: >> This suggests to me that the next step in HOMENET, which I think the naming >> architecture could lead, is to provide for (automatic) collection of statistics for >> diagnostics purposes. >> i.e. Homenet OAM. > Not as chair...