Re: [homenet] Homenet Naming Architecture

Suzanne Woolf <> Wed, 20 January 2016 01:05 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65EF81B38A2 for <>; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 17:05:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id N7kgq1E4g4kw for <>; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 17:05:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BDC7C1B38B6 for <>; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 17:05:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id 6so515586547qgy.1 for <>; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 17:05:26 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=77tZXR9JJ2rQkXUncE4qSHF2RsFWnbDPnHj3/4qVWeI=; b=SVlDR7rRo09IelMUJxrjctwLsppMC1fg/NIyZ7ZWRMDE2clRIVfXZOFUZHK0yLypaB 4Pr7WHgYBmCIRVczka1kgxX1MBm4wB4a7KIipEx1GbTlw0rLNNyoyffhw9NxFjlszyS6 ie1tXFDGowGLXqE7FdQLbaV2lqpvbyoWT9nXqx6vq+h+Wpf1W0IQl/xLT5oworfDwWjH vm/r8FWfgnBb34Wri03oMDH4JMpl4p3OBNCp89VZRmMKPdIjhYhYw+nY9c/MstoU3Bji eDi97M8aoB09/pn9Xhr72NHYKR7RmgF9Z9fvPhs+/bs28GJ9i5mXkFad2uMqH2/uAqoG TyoQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to; bh=77tZXR9JJ2rQkXUncE4qSHF2RsFWnbDPnHj3/4qVWeI=; b=U0m8pOxtluwMVpkt6Vz4hUrls2DSDNGyQbZXHTJKOkAkNb/mBHeFsXrW2RhnVNw4CO VhHUParcXEel+O/el/I4MSj2ImeaPKH4XdiWx6s8JAGhxKqS45AQ2+umN/BOSgiIFOAl yXtKmSntSHCfO/Z7NFSlrjA+4lATA7oSHoj+gKDawOonKPaA5RHprKV/NY98N3KkK8n8 yVk/kLG1n2wPtFJrRNU/zNKMrIGC44mdl/RbzgFN10UYLYvngK2i81UqKligRVTOaAR7 QeT6AH3g9WHr2EF3hakAUvNZ/fqi0k3iJcnH+gwgfpXUYb+sPLIMv1W1HL9ICjzb0tfl /cgA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQma4e+TINXiG6CsnSKv90NWoPwHeXJHMkj2kzwpPL99HhXvKzSEIMS0PoEUx1R0ZObhmK62nirgzq9FkIGFuyksuvzwDw==
X-Received: by with SMTP id m20mr44341621qhb.90.1453251925900; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 17:05:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:181:c002:25ee:c576:2dca:c989:ebdd? ([2601:181:c002:25ee:c576:2dca:c989:ebdd]) by with ESMTPSA id 66sm6348467qhp.4.2016. (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 19 Jan 2016 17:05:25 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
From: Suzanne Woolf <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 20:05:37 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <>
To: Douglas Otis <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
Archived-At: <>
Cc:, Ray Bellis <>, Andrew Sullivan <>, Ray Hunter <>, Tim Chown <>, homenet-chairs <>,,
Subject: Re: [homenet] Homenet Naming Architecture
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Homenet WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 01:05:28 -0000


On Jan 18, 2016, at 7:14 PM, Douglas Otis <> 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.