Re: [dhcwg] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-mglt-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options-00.txt

Sten Carlsen <> Mon, 21 October 2013 12:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40B6811E81B0 for <>; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 05:55:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.556
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.556 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.042, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tzLVriXQctA4 for <>; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 05:55:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:16d8:dd00:81ac::17]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0317F11E80E7 for <>; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 05:55:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 36B6BDA5B; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 14:55:09 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 14:55:09 +0200
From: Sten Carlsen <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Daniel Migault <>
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030701080701070006030903"
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-mglt-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options-00.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 12:55:15 -0000

On 21/10/13 13.21, Daniel Migault wrote:
> Actually that is the reverse. The DHCP options  makes possible for a
> user to define its naming configuration for the homenet and push it to
> any CPE that is plugged. This avoids reconfiguration when changing CPE
> or when the CPE settups are erased.
> Although specific configuration may concern a fraction of end users,
> we believe the large portion of end users, prefers a default naming
> settings that may be proposed by the DHCP.
Good, I did read it and was not sure which way names were pushed - so at
least it was not clear to me.
>     The way I see this, is that either I know what I want and make my
>     own DNS-entries or I don't care, in which case there is no meaning
>     in doing naming for people, specially as these namings will likely
>     not be meaningful to people.
> Well, most of our end users do not really care about configuring DNS
> architectures for their home network. At most they want it to work on
> a specific domain name " <>" so they can
> reach there service like "
> <>"  from outside the homenet. This latest
> name is meaningful for them, they are interested in the naming service
> to work properly. However,  they are not interested in deep
> understanding of the naming architecture and most probably not in how
> to perform key roll over. It looks these end users are just in between
> your two alternatives.
I agree very much, this I believe is what most people want. I personally
want to be able to control what can reach into my home and what in the
home can reach outside, so far we are few with that wish.

After some time, privacy concerns may drive people to want more control
over what is accessible on their network from the outside and control of
naming is one step (if it has no name, less chance someone wants to talk
to it). Access control has nothing else to do with DHCP, for that you
must acquire your own firewall.
> Note also that you can also just ignore the DHCP Options.
I assume most will do that, unless some setup-wizard will help.

Best regards

Sten Carlsen

No improvements come from shouting: