Dear Ray, Still willing. At the last IETF meeting during Bits and 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 names excluding multicast conventions related to .local.
<2013> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/name-collision-02aug13-en.pdf ,-- At the high end, the cluster includes the proposed TLDs that occur with at least order-of-magnitude greater frequency than any others (corp and home) and those that occur most frequently in internal X.509 public key certificates (mail and exchange in addition to corp). '-- ,-- RECOMMENDATION 1: The TLDs .corp, .home, and .mail be referred to the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) for potential RFC 1918-like protection/treatment. '-- <2014> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/name-collision-mitigation-study-06jun14-en.pdf Suggest alternative TLDs proposed by http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6762 such as: .intranet. .internal. .private. .corp. .home. .lan. Avoids problems caused with use of .local. <2015> https://centr.org/document/4601 ,-- Conflict between RFC 6761 and the IETF-ICANN MoU (RFC 2860)? >From the organisational point of view, RFC 6761 had somewhat shifted the relation of the IETF and ICANN. According to RFC 2860 the IETF seized its role as a policy body for the DNS and ICANN and the latter now had a process to delegate names, albeit a heavy and costly one. A second open round for new TLD applications was just under consideration, Durand said. While the MoU had made an – albeit vague – exemption from the ICANN’s prerogative as the name space body in charge, RFC 6761 had slightly changed that. For the review now the intra-organisational problems (IETF lacking a process to reserve names due to 6761 vagueness) and the inter-organisational problems (was 6761 as such a violation of the MoU?) had to be considered. Questions around a potential invalidity of 6761 were quickly rejected as a potential “rat hole”. An opening up of 2860 – in order to renegotiate the roles of ICANN and IETF – were quickly dismissed by Arkko (“IESG asked WG to look at 6761. RFC 2860 is not on the table.”) '-- Moving forward, the role for .home and .corp TLDs with respect at establishing local naming conventions needs to be clarified before meaningful headway can be made. Can anyone offer meaningful guidance on this point? Regards, Douglas Otis On 1/5/16 1:12 AM, Ray Bellis wrote: > Dear all, > > You each indicated willingness to work on a document for the Homenet WG > describing all aspects of Homenet Naming and Service Discovery. > > With the holidays out of the way and the New Year now upon us it would > be great if some progress could now be made on that. > > Assuming that you are still willing, would you like to agree a main > editor from amongst you? > > thanks, > > Ray _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
