Re: [Arcing] A bit more on the problem statement

[Douglas Otis <[e-mail]>]

On 2/4/16 11:44 AM, Ted Hardie wrote:
> If we get broad agreement to use a particular signal, 
> like .alt, then folks minting new namespaces in .alt can 
> avoid collision with a simple FCFS registry.  If everyone
> plays nice, there is no collision and you have no big
> issues.  But we have no way of making that so, and we
> have seen in the pseudo-TLD case that people mint these,
> use them, and then require updates of others to deal with
> the collisions.  Depending on the usage of .alt or a
> similar signal, that could remain a concern (at least
> version of the proposal had no registry at all, just the
> reserved top label).

Dear Ted,

Why assume .home should be converted to .home.alt? Is this
to ensure .alt gains inertia with its namespace containing
definitions similar to those found with
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cheshire-homenet-dot-home-02?

Open-ended FCFS registration will encourage an explosion of
variant namespaces having any number of resolution methods
and context. It seems safer to keep .home as defined by
draft-cheshire-homenet-dot-home-02, and let .alt develop
independently. In the goodness of time resource assessments
and related risks assessments can then be made.

Small home CPE devices offer limited storage and need
simplistic access methods to limit vulnerabilities and
coding complexity. As such, offering a highly extensible
resolution structure as a first step seems ill considered.
Otherwise, assessing security risks will provide resulting
extensibility APIs likely to make Java and Flash defense
seem trivial in comparison and will do nothing to limit the
leakage of .home.

Regards,
Douglas Otis