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

2016-07-17 Thread Ted Lemon
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)

2016-07-17 Thread Ted Lemon
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)

2016-07-17 Thread Andrew Sullivan
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 >

Re: [homenet] RFC 7788-bis

2016-06-20 Thread Peter Koch
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 09:37:06AM +0100, Ray Bellis wrote: > As for #2, yeah, that's hard, but it seems ICANN won't do anything about > ".home" because of #1 anyway, but they seemed stalled on outright > rejecting it and have said (AFAICR) that an RFC 6761 registration would > allow them to

Re: [homenet] RFC 7788-bis

2016-06-17 Thread Ray Bellis
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] RFC 7788-bis

2016-06-16 Thread Michael Richardson
Ray Bellis wrote: >> In my opinion, it is important for the exact requirements and >> semantics for the default domain be defined, perhaps even before the >> default domain itself is selected. It's not clear to me whether the >> domain carried in the

Re: [homenet] RFC 7788-bis

2016-06-16 Thread Ray Bellis
On 16/06/2016 19:48, Ralph Droms wrote: > In my opinion, it is important for the exact requirements and > semantics for the default domain be defined, perhaps even before the > default domain itself is selected. It's not clear to me whether the > domain carried in the Domain-Name TLV can be a

Re: [homenet] RFC 7788-bis

2016-06-16 Thread Tim Wicinski
On 6/16/16 2:48 PM, Ralph Droms wrote: On Jun 16, 2016, at 1:26 PM 6/16/16, Ray Bellis wrote: As was alluded to in my email of 9th June, we have been asked to replace RFC 7788 (HNCP) with an RFC 7788-bis as soon as possible to incorporate the errata raised by the DNSOP chair

Re: [homenet] RFC 7788-bis

2016-06-16 Thread Ralph Droms
> On Jun 16, 2016, at 1:26 PM 6/16/16, Ray Bellis wrote: > > As was alluded to in my email of 9th June, we have been asked to replace > RFC 7788 (HNCP) with an RFC 7788-bis as soon as possible to incorporate > the errata raised by the DNSOP chair regarding the unintended apparent

[homenet] RFC 7788-bis

2016-06-16 Thread Ray Bellis
As was alluded to in my email of 9th June, we have been asked to replace RFC 7788 (HNCP) with an RFC 7788-bis as soon as possible to incorporate the errata raised by the DNSOP chair regarding the unintended apparent reservation of ".home" as the default domain TLV within HNCP. We should also take