IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [homenet] alternatives to .home

avri doria <avri@acm.org> Fri, 17 June 2016 19:39 UTC

Return-Path: <avri@acm.org>
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 6BB8B12D0AE for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Jun 2016 12:39:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.644
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.644 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no 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 2Gi0S1yllS5T for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Jun 2016 12:39:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtprelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0068.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 24B0012D0B5 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Jun 2016 12:39:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (unknown [216.40.38.60]) by smtprelay04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 049923521C3 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Jun 2016 19:39:23 +0000 (UTC)
X-Session-Marker: 6176726940646F7269612E6F7267
X-Spam-Summary: 50, 0, 0, , d41d8cd98f00b204, avri@acm.org, :, RULES_HIT:41:152:355:379:599:854:967:973:988:989:1042:1260:1261:1277:1311:1313:1314:1345:1359:1381:1437:1513:1515:1516:1518:1521:1534:1541:1593:1594:1711:1730:1747:1777:1792:1963:2393:2525:2553:2560:2563:2682:2685:2859:2933:2937:2939:2942:2945:2947:2951:2954:3022:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3352:3865:3866:3867:3868:3870:3871:3872:3874:3934:3936:3938:3941:3944:3947:3950:3953:3956:3959:4250:5007:6119:7652:7903:8985:9025:10004:10400:10848:11232:11658:11914:12043:12517:12519:12740:13069:13311:13357:14096:14097:14181:14721:14764:21080:21366:21433:30022:30029:30030:30054, 0, RBL:none, CacheIP:none, Bayesian:0.5, 0.5, 0.5, Netcheck:none, DomainCache:0, MSF:not bulk, SPF:fp, MSBL:0, DNSBL:none, Custom_rules:0:0:0, LFtime:2, LUA_SUMMARY:none
X-HE-Tag: scarf35_34c4bde2de762
X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 1960
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [23.82.54.75]) (Authenticated sender: avri@doria.org) by omf10.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA for <homenet@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Jun 2016 19:39:22 +0000 (UTC)
References: <76ed7404-35ff-9cc8-262b-d5785595465c@isc.org> <4598.1466104881@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <87porgafsq.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr>
To: homenet@ietf.org
From: avri doria <avri@acm.org>
Message-ID: <8a163b8c-1eba-d2e1-3c93-5c77c9ba641c@acm.org>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 15:38:42 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <87porgafsq.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 160617-0, 06/17/2016), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/E_FI9Rr3gkmtPS0eQ8X87On2a8U>
Subject: Re: [homenet] alternatives to .home
X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: avri@acm.org
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: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 19:39:25 -0000


On 16-Jun-16 19:13, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> (The right choice for Homenet, of course, is ".domus".  Although, now that
> I think about it, RFC 1034 doesn't mention whether domain names are in the
> nominative or the locative, so perhaps we should also consider ".domo".)

I think there is an important point in this bit of humor.  If it is
decided that a TLD needs to be reserved for the purposes of a protocol,
it does not need to be a natural language word from any particular
living language.  

Additionally, it is good to include in the requirements that any name
selected should not be one that is in use already, whether by delegation
or de-facto, or is in contention elsewhere. It should be a combination
of characters that brings no baggage with it.

Neologisms like "homenet" are good compromises between human factor
understanding and avoidance of problem areas.

avri


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email