Re: [homenet] Homenet Naming Architecture

[Suzanne Woolf <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

On Jan 18, 2016, at 7:14 PM, Douglas Otis <[e-mail]> wrote:

> RECOMMENDATION 1: The TLDs .corp, .home, and .mail be
> referred to the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) for
> potential RFC 1918-like protection/treatment.

There was an individual draft proposing these names be reserved in the special use names registry that was extensively discussed in DNSOP last year. The WG did not decide to advance it.
> 
> Moving forward, the role for .home and .corp TLDs with
> respect at establishing local naming conventions needs to be
> clarified before meaningful headway can be made.  Can anyone
> offer meaningful guidance on this point?

I'm not sure I understand the claim you're making here-- maybe I missed a great deal of progress on the homenet naming architecture, but it seems to me that there's plenty of work to be done in deciding what behavior we want from names before we start worrying about which specific strings to use. (One of the key questions to me, if in fact we end up choosing domain names for this purpose, is what value is actually added by using a human-friendly string at all in the homenet context; YMMV.)

In regards to the specific names you mention, it's my personal opinion that we wouldn't be doing anyone a service by trying to use them in homenet, both because they're contended within the ICANN policy space (as I think Andrew already pointed out) and because if we take the risk of collision with a global delegation of those names seriously, we should also take seriously the possibility that they're being used in ways that could lead to collisions in homenets.


thanks,
Suzanne