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

[Douglas Otis <[e-mail]>]

On 2/13/16 12:31 PM, Edward Lewis wrote:
> Replying to this, having at least skimmed, if not read
> the followups...
> 
> On 2/3/16, 13:56, "Arcing on behalf of Ted Hardie" 
> <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]>
> wrote:
> 
> 
>> My first question to this group is:  do folks agree
>> with this characterization?  If not, what's wrong?
> 
> I agree fully, FWIW.
> 
>> If they do agree with the characterization of the
>> problem, does this sketch of solution spaces look
>> right?
> 
> Yep.
> 
>> And, most importantly, which level of the problem do we
>> think we can solve:  the multiple namespaces one or the
>> unitary namespace/multiple resolution contexts one?
> 
> One solution is to define a single namespace,
> complimentary to as much de-jure use that now exists.
> Defining what protocols "support" the namespace can be
> left to the protocol's discretion.  What I mean is, I 
> tried for a while to define the scope of protocols that I
> wanted to have Domain Names apply to, but calling the set
> something like "IETF protocols" turned out to be
> inaccurate.  So I began to think of - just define a name 
> space and see what protocols "come" to it.
> 
> There's a lot to discuss.  I think markers approach is
> currently the most appealing, but, you never can tell at
> this stage.

Dear Edward,

This is likely my last comment.

Developing a grand scheme to identify how future namespace
resolution is to be handled should be balanced against the
specific solution of a non-global .home TLD offering a
concise and safe method made available early in the homenet
process as a means to avoid delay and security risks
incumbent with any future grand multipurpose scheme.

Homenet offers homes multi-router environments based on IPv6
with services found using DNS-SD. In nearly every possible
deployment of typical home networks generally lacking key
security components, publishing DNS-SD within global DNS
namespace will expose a tremendous level of device
vulnerabilities likely to include those discovered over the
last few years or more.

Don't insist adoption of draft-cheshire-homenet-dot-home-02
must follow some grander scheme that might make use of an
alternate root or URL modification. Any such approach
doubtlessly precludes essential compatibilities needing
consideration for Homenet deployment.

Regards,
Douglas Otis