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
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
> >
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
>
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
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
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
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
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
> 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
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
10 matches
Mail list logo