IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

Philip Homburg <pch-dnsop-2@u-1.phicoh.com> Tue, 21 March 2017 14:05 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-bF054DD66@u-1.phicoh.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31C71126DD9 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 07:05:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hiEz8LZ3brCk for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 07:05:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo6-tun.hq.phicoh.net [IPv6:2001:888:1044:10:2a0:c9ff:fe9f:17a9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFD681200C5 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 07:05:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (Smail #130) id m1cqKPa-0000FeC; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 15:05:22 +0100
Message-Id: <m1cqKPa-0000FeC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
From: Philip Homburg <pch-dnsop-2@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-bF054DD66@u-1.phicoh.com
References: <E07AFAEB-2B84-4610-87E7-94CF32CF3761@fugue.com> <7652B138-FEAB-4138-91FB-D71AFE6BEF2C@vigilsec.com> <6DCFBC9D-666A-4A3C-A418-82BB6AE3D25D@gmail.com> <alpine.LRH.2.20.999.1703210928390.28925@bofh.nohats.ca>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 21 Mar 2017 09:54:02 -0400 (EDT) ." <alpine.LRH.2.20.999.1703210928390.28925@bofh.nohats.ca>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 15:05:21 +0100
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/1bP27YlkSf1-Ln7OXdvjNrlewOw>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 14:05:24 -0000

> This .home / .homenet issue has already been going on for a very
> long time. The longer we wait with resolving this issue, the worse
> the deployment situation will be of software mixing .home vs
> >homenet.

Do we really expect homenet to be only ever used in a 'home'? It seems to
me that homenet is an interesting technology that would work in any small 
IPv6 network, i.e. a small office. 

In that context, using the string 'homenet' would be very confusing to users
outside a home context. Maybe reserving a name that has less context would
be better.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email