context, you are already in
Internet land. That's an interoperation problem, at least from the
user's point of view.
Best,
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com
___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo
,
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com
___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
that are all in use at
the same time.
Best,
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com
___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
that everyone understands how many different naming
infrastructures are really involved in a small network with a lot of
ad-hocery going on.)
Best,
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com
___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org
be
delighted to learn it is true, but I haven't so far found a convincing
story.
Best,
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com
___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
.)
Best,
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com
___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
it is way, way too complicated.
I also think it's a nearly solved problem in shipping product to-day.
Best,
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com
___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
scenarios we need to address?
My personal view is that views are hateful, but many people seem to think
it's important to hide names when one isn't authorized to use them.
In any case, you're undoubtedly going to need views wherever there's a
NAT and v4.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com
in
the global name space.
Best regards,
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com
___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
that plague this sort of
behaviour aren't an issue. (I'd like that not to be true, of course,
but that's not directly relevant to SD issues.)
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com
___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org
discovery that you think we should
not be doing? It sure seems to me like it is a friendlier answer than
manual configuration.
Best,
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com
___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 08:25:38AM +, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Yes, but shouldn't there be a normative reference to IDNA?
If so, we should also include a reference to the preferred syntax
discussion in STD 13 or maybe to the hostname syntax. But sure.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
. Is the
problem that it doesn't say what kinds of services are to be
discovered?
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com
___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
to route through the ISP link;
inside-homenet-only names may use in-homenet interfaces. (I'm sure
there's a more elegant way to say that, but I've written in haste.)
Best regards,
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com
___
homenet mailing list
(if harder to understand) examples involve a dual-homed node like a
phone flipping from one interface to another. You'd need sub-second
TTLs for that not to be a problem, and we don't have those.
Best,
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com
worried about
(1). Thinking as a vendor, I note that (2) basically means ditching a
lot of running code, although for a protocol I think is poorly
designed.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com
___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https
2308, so that should be the reference.
Best regards,
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com
___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
knows about these, of course, because they're the basis
for the hidden master.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com
___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
it.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com
___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
a
TLD is important. For that case, however, I don't want us to go
digging for TLDs over which there could be some controversy when we
could pick from an enormous list of possible strings that nobody has
ever asked for. As the old saw goes, Don't borrow trouble.
Best regards,
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
the names beneath this special-use name are supposed to cause
software to do something differently than it would with any other
domain name, then that sounds like "infrastructure" to me. That's why
we used it for the special IPv4 only name in dns64, for instance.
Best regards
off the table. We
are not competent to do that, and anyway we're specifying a permanent
part of infrastructure that will not be able to evolve as (say)
language evolves.
Best regards,
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com
___
homenet mailing
On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 04:14:46PM -0800, Douglas Otis wrote:
>
Bytes, Andrew Sullivan expressed concerns with respect to
> use of .home (4th) with a 60% YtoY increase and .corp (21st)
> with a 18% YtoY increase as TLD labels to declare
> non-multicast conventions for local nam
ilable under RFC 6761.
Best regards,
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com
___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
rmally decided anything as
a permanent matter.
> .home is tainted by ad-hoc use. The ad-hoc use seems to be exactly the same
> use as RFC7788 uses it for.
How exactly do you determine this "exactly the same" use among a large
swathe of unknown people all over the Internet?
Best
it can be entertainment to watch those films where someone
foolishly got into a car that was then swept over Niagara Falls.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com
___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
eless, as I said upthread, this is not merely a political problem.
Best regards,
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com
___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
ple on Earth don't use Latin writing,
never mind English words.
I hope this explains why I think proceeding with home is problematic.
Andrew (speaking only for myself).
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com
___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
ance.)
Best regards,
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com
___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
home. or any other name without having answered the questions in
section 5 of RFC 6761, and without registering a well-known domain
name in the DNS, is bad for the network and a threat to the very users
we're supposed to be serving with this effort.
Best regards,
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...
h how you'll get a valid
> answer from one but not the other ]
Not necessarily. For instance, you could use Bonjour and the hybrid
proxy approach and do it that way. It's not clear to me from RFC 7368
whether we're allowed to assume mDNS is available on any host, but
given the zeroconf pattern and the
think even very
fundamental notions in the document can't be thrown over later. But I
think the WG ought to have change control over such decisions.
Best regards,
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com
___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https
into
consideration when deciding what kind of label to use.
Best regards,
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com
___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
ves). We do not have that authority, and
given that the IANA stewardship change just happened it seems to me we
should be alert to the boundaries we have just reinforced.
Best regards,
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com
___
homenet mailing
this. After
all, if you're comfortable at a command line you could probably just
run a split-brain DNS for yourself in your homenet.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com
___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
idea.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
Please excuse my clumbsy thums.
> On Nov 18, 2016, at 09:00, Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> wrote:
>
>
> Ted Lemon <mel...@fugue.com> wrote:
>> It has to be possible to type it. "hm.arpa" would be amusing.
&g
nk
that's the issue. The issue is that home is a well-known, in use TLD
(we know because of those queries), and the consequences of reusing it
are therefore completely unknown.
Best regards,
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com
___
homenet mailing
w more details on how it's supposed to work.
> Comments very welcome, patches even more so :)
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> -Toke
>
> _______
> homenet mailing list
> homenet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
tion. Basically, to get homenet without the provably insecure
delegation, you need to give up on validation or you have to accept
that homenet techniques won't work until everything has been upgraded.
(I suppose that, since we're assuming v6, we might be waiting for that
anyway ;-) )
Best regards,
A
seems shy of various claims
in the architecture document, which I see as a sort of requirements
document.
So, I'm not opposed to working on it. But I wish it were more
ambitious. But I wish I were more ambitious, too :-)
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalr
ut my
pragmatic self wants to ship something and make some progress, and I'm
not sure that a bigger scope than the present draft is going to get
finished.
Best regards,
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com
___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
atively for such a zone. A server …
Best regards,
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com
___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
he goal I think we're aiming for.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com
___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
out
of scope unless we just decide that we won't solve that problem.
> I have no expectation of updating *all* hosts. But I do think it may be
> reasonable to expect "if a host wants to participate in the brand new homenet
> naming architecture, it must be updated".
I guess I
red) DNS servers for each provisioning domain.
>
DNS doesn't work that way, is the problem. It doesn't have a mode
bit. What you are proposing is homenet-DNS; it's a new protocol.
Maybe that's the right answer, but I'm far from convinced that this is
the place to create DNSbis.
Best regard
e cases, but I might have missed
something.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com
___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
ed to implement any homenet-specific capabilities
> in order to discover and access services on the homenet. This
> architecture may define optional homenet-specific features, but hosts
> that do not implement these features must work on homenets.
What does "work
to me especially troublesome for the upgrade path, because
even if you have a global name your minimal homenet is never going to
answer for it. I think §3.6 should be removed, because the document
already says it just isn't going to support DNSSEC.
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com
_
agree with the above. That is, I think it
is reasonable to work on things as it starts to be clear what else we
can rely on.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com
___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
tive qualification to the root zone.
Now, the thing is that the root label is 0 octets long (that's how you
know it's the root), so it can't be typed. So, you end up with a
separator and no visible label after it when the labels appear in
presentation form (like in running text).
50 matches
Mail list logo
