IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] we already have a new version of this problem

Paul Vixie <vixie@tisf.net> Thu, 05 November 2015 01:25 UTC

Return-Path: <vixie@tisf.net>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BC741B350C for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 17:25:43 -0800 (PST)
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
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 EXvQeEidUlov for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 17:25:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from family.redbarn.org (family.redbarn.org [IPv6:2001:559:8000:cd::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F12851B35A2 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 17:25:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from linux-85bq.suse (unknown [24.104.150.29]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by family.redbarn.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A88C3181F4; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 01:25:41 +0000 (UTC)
From: Paul Vixie <vixie@tisf.net>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2015 17:25:41 -0800
Message-ID: <1992373.2Sn9vo2vJt@linux-85bq.suse>
Organization: TISF
User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.1.12-1-default; KDE/4.14.10; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <563AADE3.2070704@gmail.com>
References: <CAKr6gn0oiK9WKfN95b=muuxG0+0oKv8KDaq=xpabRf-zgCO+gQ@mail.gmail.com> <563AADE3.2070704@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/fDVkS7DirpGtF3GfKfxVNL2dghE>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 04 Nov 2015 17:38:33 -0800
Cc: Tim WIcinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] we already have a new version of this problem
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 05 Nov 2015 01:36:48 -0000

On Thursday, November 05, 2015 10:16:19 AM Tim WIcinski wrote:
> I believe the IESG guidance given to us is that no Special Use Domain
> Names will be addressed until the 6761 "scaling issue" has a direction.

tellingly, the technologies that will surround "homenet" will also be relevant 
to SOHO and even SMB, not just residential. so, the IESG is showing wisdom 
here. let the scope of the need be known, and let the context of the naming be 
known, before any more defacto allocations occur.

vixie

re:

> 
> On 11/5/15 10:11 AM, George Michaelson wrote:
> > So can somebody explain to me what we are meant to do with a possible
> > emerging homenet desire for .home?
> > 
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cheshire-homenet-dot-home/
> > 
> > because I believe this isn't just the tail of odd requests from the
> > tor people for various hash based names.. its another WG inside the
> > IETF process thinking "oh.. .onion worked, so lets go do one"
> > 
> > -G
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > DNSOP mailing list
> > DNSOP@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

-- 
P. Vixie

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email