Re: [homenet] alternatives to .home

Michael Richardson wrote: > AFAIK, ".local" is not used on the wire with mDNS. The .local is a > clue from the end-user to the resolver that you should use mDNS to > resolve the name. I stand corrected: it's on the wire. -- Michael Richardson

Re: [homenet] alternatives to .home

> On Jun 20, 2016, at 10:23 AM 6/20/16, Michael Richardson > wrote: > > Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: - how does software running on my laptop, which just connected to an unknown network, find out what is the local translation of

Re: [homenet] alternatives to .home

Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: >>> - how does software running on my laptop, which just connected to an >>> unknown network, find out what is the local translation of "home"? >> It doesn't. It uses HNCP. > Please describe exactly how my laptop (which

Re: [homenet] alternatives to .home

Yes, exactly. Thanks for putting it so succinctly, Suzanne. :) On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 5:31 PM, Suzanne Woolf wrote: > Hi, > > I’d like to gently suggest that if the long-running discussion on the > topic of special use names in DNSOP has taught us anything, it’s

Re: [homenet] alternatives to .home

You propose that .domus and .home both be possible presented names for the same object: the home network. Users will use many devices on the home network; each of these devices will have to display the same name. If the actual name is the same, this is easy. If the UI has to make it look

Re: [homenet] alternatives to .home

>> - how does software running on my laptop, which just connected to an >> unknown network, find out what is the local translation of "home"? > It doesn't. It uses HNCP. Please describe exactly how my laptop (which doesn't run HNCP) finds out the right domain. Please describe how an HNCP router

Re: [homenet] alternatives to .home

Hi, I’d like to gently suggest that if the long-running discussion on the topic of special use names in DNSOP has taught us anything, it’s that the behavior people would like to have from DNS resolvers, users, etc. for a name is of primary importance. The choices of name resolution protocol,

Re: [homenet] alternatives to .home

> Those who come from cultures that speak languages descended from older or > different roots might challenge the universality of that proposal. I strongly object to Sumerian cuneiform. > I don't think there is a correct answer to this. .local has worked, which is > the best we can hope for with

Re: [homenet] alternatives to .home

Ted Lemon wrote: > model that the user forms will be wrong. If .home and .domus are I don't propose that they be the same. I'm suggesting that the HNCP will pick one or the other (or some other translation) is picked as the single choice. > It's much better not to do

Re: [homenet] alternatives to .home

On 16-Jun-16 19:13, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: > (The right choice for Homenet, of course, is ".domus". Although, now that > I think about it, RFC 1034 doesn't mention whether domain names are in the > nominative or the locative, so perhaps we should also consider ".domo".) I think there is an

Re: [homenet] alternatives to .home

If the name is not consistent wherever the user encounters it, the model that the user forms will be wrong. If .home and .domus are treated as equal by the system, but presented inconsistently, then the user will form a mental model that sees the two as distinct. And, to be clear, any time you

Re: [homenet] alternatives to .home

Ted Lemon wrote: > Michael, the reason to have a consistent name is that the name _will_ > show up in UI elements, and therefore _should_ behave in a > comprehensible manner. The IETF tends to be understandably dismissive > of the end-user's capacity to

Re: [homenet] alternatives to .home

Michael, the reason to have a consistent name is that the name _will_ show up in UI elements, and therefore _should_ behave in a comprehensible manner. The IETF tends to be understandably dismissive of the end-user's capacity to correctly model the functioning of the network, but we should not

Re: [homenet] alternatives to .home

Edmon Chung wrote: > e.g. 2 character non-countrycodes: QM QN QO QP QQ QR QS QT QU QV QW QX > QY QZ XA XB XC XD XE XF XG XH XI XJ XK XL XM XN XO XP XQ XR XS XT XU XV > XW XX XY XZ .xh .xn seem like the best. -- Michael Richardson ,

Re: [homenet] alternatives to .home

Andrew Sullivan wrote: >> .local has worked > But mostly because ordinary humans never see it. That's what's not > clear to me. I think so. I also think that it shows up in logs and ... > Is this a name that will mostly be hidden by user-interface

Re: [homenet] alternatives to .home

Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: > Let us please not open this particular can of worms: > - how does software running on my laptop, which just connected to an > unknown network, find out what is the local translation of "home"? It doesn't. It uses HNCP.

Re: [homenet] alternatives to .home

On 17.6.2016, at 10.37, Pierre Pfister wrote: > I think this is a key point indeed. > > mDNS works really hard to *not* show any name to the user. > I would like it to be the same for homenet, but I am not sure we have a > complete solution for no-name multi-link

Re: [homenet] alternatives to .home

pps.univ- >> paris-diderot.fr>; 'Michael Richardson' <m...@sandelman.ca> >> Cc: 'HOMENET' <homenet@ietf.org> >> Subject: Re: [homenet] alternatives to .home >> >> >> >> On 6/16/2016 4:58 PM, Edmon Chung wrote: >>> perhaps it would b

Re: [homenet] alternatives to .home

asia>; 'Juliusz Chroboczek' <j...@pps.univ- > paris-diderot.fr>; 'Michael Richardson' <m...@sandelman.ca> > Cc: 'HOMENET' <homenet@ietf.org> > Subject: Re: [homenet] alternatives to .home > > > > On 6/16/2016 4:58 PM, Edmon Chung wrote: > > perhaps it

Re: [homenet] alternatives to .home

Ordinary humans see names all the time. See section 2.1 of the homenet naming architecture; if you disagree with the reasoning there, please suggest text! :) https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lemon-homenet-naming-architecture-00#section-2.1 On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 9:10 PM, Andrew Sullivan

Re: [homenet] alternatives to .home

On 6/16/2016 6:04 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 01:26:29PM -0700, Joe Touch wrote: >> See RFC3172. >> >> I don't think .arpa is the correct place for this sort of stuff. > Why? "[T]his domain name undertakes a role as a limited use domain > for Internet infrastructure

Re: [homenet] alternatives to .home

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 07:53:42PM -0400, Ted Lemon wrote: >.local has worked But mostly because ordinary humans never see it. That's what's not clear to me. Is this a name that will mostly be hidden by user-interface sugar (which is mostly how it works with mDNS -- please don't tell me about

Re: [homenet] alternatives to .home

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 01:26:29PM -0700, Joe Touch wrote: > See RFC3172. > > I don't think .arpa is the correct place for this sort of stuff. Why? "[T]his domain name undertakes a role as a limited use domain for Internet infrastructure applications," and This domain is termed an

Re: [homenet] alternatives to .home

On 6/16/2016 4:58 PM, Edmon Chung wrote: > perhaps it would be easier/better to pick a name from the "reserved names" at > the ICANN/IANA which cannot otherwise be used anyway?... > > e.g. 2 character non-countrycodes: All currently unused 2-letter codes can still be assigned by ISO as

Re: [homenet] alternatives to .home

t;word" Edmon > -Original Message- > From: homenet [mailto:homenet-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Juliusz > Chroboczek > Sent: Friday, 17 June 2016 07:13 AM > To: Michael Richardson <m...@sandelman.ca> > Cc: HOMENET <homenet@ietf.org> > Subject: Re: [h

Re: [homenet] alternatives to .home

Yeah, we went down the .arpa path with .local back in ~2000 and it was soundly rejected. :) On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 4:26 PM, Joe Touch wrote: > See RFC3172. > > I don't think .arpa is the correct place for this sort of stuff. > > Joe > > On 6/16/2016 12:21 PM, Michael Richardson

Re: [homenet] alternatives to .home

See RFC3172. I don't think .arpa is the correct place for this sort of stuff. Joe On 6/16/2016 12:21 PM, Michael Richardson wrote: > Ray Bellis wrote: > > It should be noted (as pointed out to us by the Chair of the IAB) that > > the default domain need not be a

[homenet] alternatives to .home

Ray Bellis wrote: > It should be noted (as pointed out to us by the Chair of the IAB) that > the default domain need not be a single-label "pseudo-TLD" - it could > be a sub-domain of an existing name in the DNS such as ".arpa". I propose that we use something like: