Re: [homenet] RFC 7788-bis

Peter Koch <pk@DENIC.DE> Mon, 20 June 2016 15:28 UTC

Return-Path: <peter@denic.de>
X-Original-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6992612D186 for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jun 2016 08:28:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.626
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.626 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426] 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 xDWeBpD4tHQw for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jun 2016 08:28:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from office.denic.de (office.denic.de [81.91.160.182]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A95F712D0CC for <homenet@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Jun 2016 08:28:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from office.denic.de (mailout-6.osl.denic.de [10.122.34.32]) by office.denic.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F9631FC6A for <homenet@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Jun 2016 17:27:53 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from x27.adm.denic.de (x28.fra2.if.denic.de [10.122.64.17]) by office.denic.de with esmtps (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) id 1bF17B-0004Lo-4j; Mon, 20 Jun 2016 17:27:53 +0200
Received: from localhost by x27.adm.denic.de with local id 1bF17A-0001Nh-Rg; Mon, 20 Jun 2016 17:27:52 +0200
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 17:27:52 +0200
From: Peter Koch <pk@DENIC.DE>
To: homenet@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20160620152752.GA3136@x28.adm.denic.de>
Mail-Followup-To: homenet@ietf.org
References: <76ed7404-35ff-9cc8-262b-d5785595465c@isc.org> <20160617010044.GA22195@mx2.yitter.info> <4e794ce6-2605-a0d2-c0e7-fe44bb149794@bellis.me.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4e794ce6-2605-a0d2-c0e7-fe44bb149794@bellis.me.uk>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
Sender: Peter Koch <peter@denic.de>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/47JyGt-dn0HD4GM9c7Eb2xEOgGs>
Subject: Re: [homenet] RFC 7788-bis
X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Homenet WG mailing list <homenet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/homenet/>
List-Post: <mailto:homenet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 15:28:03 -0000

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 09:37:06AM +0100, Ray Bellis wrote:

> As for #2, yeah, that's hard, but it seems ICANN won't do anything about
> ".home" because of #1 anyway, but they seemed stalled on outright
> rejecting it and have said (AFAICR) that an RFC 6761 registration would
> allow them to reject (and refund) those applications.

which is even another reason for the IETF not to step into this particular trap.

-Peter