On 26/05/2018 08:06, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
> Ted Lemon <mel...@fugue.com> wrote:
> >> I hate to ask this, but it seems like we ought to have a definition
> for a
> >> managed network... :-(
> >> I think that the section 2.1 provides contrasts, but maybe we should
> instead
> >> say what aspects of the Managed LAN we care about.
>
> > Good point. The "including the ability to publish services on the
> > Internet" seems like a reasonable first attempt at specifying that, but
> > I agree that it's insufficient. Do you have a theory to offer? What
> > I think I meant by this was:
>
> A managed network is one that has a (human) manager, or operator.
> The operator has authority over the network, and the authority to publish
> names
> in a forward DNS tree, and reverse names in the reverse tree.
> The operator has the authority to sign the respective trees with DNSSEC,
> and acquire TLS certificates for hosts/servers within the network.
This prompts a few thoughts:
(1) There's a strong resemblance between a homenet and a small office
network, in which there's quite likely to be a human who is supposedly
in charge of the network as a minor part of their job. That may well be
a human who has the authority but not the skills. So there's possibly
a category of "badly managed network" to consider.
(2) I note the "(human)". Actually some of the concepts of autonomics
and intent-based networking may spill over from enterprise networks
into SOHO, at some point in the future.
So, the naming system may end up being fully automatic, well or badly
managed by a human, or managed autonomically.
Brian
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
