From nobody Thu Jan 7 03:01:37 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homenet@ietf.org Delivered-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD8581A88B6; Thu, 7 Jan 2016 03:01:36 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "\"IETF Meeting Session Request Tool\"" To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.11.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20160107110136.26143.17043.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2016 03:01:36 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: homenet-chairs@ietf.org, homenet@ietf.org, mark@townsley.net, terry.manderson@icann.org Subject: [homenet] homenet - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 95 X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: IETF Homenet WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2016 11:01:36 -0000 A new meeting session request has just been submitted by Mark Townsley, a Chair of the homenet working group. --------------------------------------------------------- Working Group Name: Home Networking Area Name: Internet Area Session Requester: Mark Townsley Number of Sessions: 1 Length of Session(s): 2 Hours Number of Attendees: 170 Conflicts to Avoid: First Priority: v6ops intarea dnsop dnssd 6man sunset4 pcp mif bier anima softwire dhc mptcp Second Priority: manet roll dprive isis ospf opsec rtgarea rtgwg dane Special Requests: Conflicts and time may be revised depending on state of potential babel routing BoF. --------------------------------------------------------- From nobody Mon Jan 18 16:15:13 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3FD51A6F92 for ; Mon, 18 Jan 2016 16:15:12 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: 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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id B5DGBXt-7ABP for ; Mon, 18 Jan 2016 16:15:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pf0-x234.google.com (mail-pf0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 21D601A6F90 for ; Mon, 18 Jan 2016 16:15:11 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pf0-x234.google.com with SMTP id e65so165559663pfe.0 for ; Mon, 18 Jan 2016 16:15:11 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=2r+YzRsIZHzmxhERh13p0Rly/SSIIxWTfFjZVU6Xidk=; b=O9NcRKAXIsiFcSwq3dPtTP9ZHIbA+1bBE3JQksSb9nIdoRDzkw7MXfwDG20DT3A8uR pXPSw5tT+mRl7kFz8KoA4a+LAnu83kn6m1rYR4khXoTpIdjTtz5o0MCSeeIZCFrKz3m7 iQ1m7ncwpGBkc+D+W2nidkknml276zSFiFi4Q2ly+yRbriwjaskRPCeILkHNTbf92UO4 Q26TlSmN/pZ2vqBoJ1Nt1t1CIYvcvOQ1RQMZF44SBF0F1CIZ5sE0Co+CoUAlQub+uduG 7KnfOmleFcKE33cnGR54it261C2+5H88jSffuw8DK3gr6WZjQ9MPZx7eLNj1+G7GDYy6 6pxA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=2r+YzRsIZHzmxhERh13p0Rly/SSIIxWTfFjZVU6Xidk=; b=Pupi9Lr+XDhKX0laO0Vc3gUWiK/hTCNR5Yz04BL3zJGXWrt7BWDQ+srXmPmbpJsxWY mHS5hMsa8HWdW48IIH1wMy8uXPc8DjtLeb+mrbnPnxUItJBlq6I3EYaVKIlZqVxpVFYb G9tjWfJeBk9gCYu7nPJ0wWymL9Uya2FVmQ0NS9pK3IW/i/rHHrPlIKRSIsv7s0FWqRqn ymq6W4DeQPf4FQ24Nuno1DKn3Wa1u/mBgPwMviVbhk/wGQ/3GDRHFOMM8qtO4sEo2RtO 85D2h40cvSELqIud6dXjmu3Eu6veLpgrASKnndVRucAt/F6zaRL3q+dIk8lT615RHDXF BCAQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnYrtyaWEHFSYe6Nlge2p46047gfdU39JIwiTdWSFmLCjLO0Z/4xygplqIyCv7COuon+sTz79NDXiNcvczOYhLlYk8IdQ== X-Received: by 10.98.68.73 with SMTP id r70mr40542697pfa.12.1453162510704; Mon, 18 Jan 2016 16:15:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from US-DOUGO-MAC.local (107-0-5-6-ip-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net. [107.0.5.6]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id cf6sm36643584pad.41.2016.01.18.16.15.06 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 18 Jan 2016 16:15:09 -0800 (PST) To: Ray Bellis , Ray Hunter , Ted.Lemon@nominum.com, Andrew Sullivan , Tim Chown References: <568B88E1.9040000@bellis.me.uk> From: Douglas Otis X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Message-ID: <569D7FF6.1090109@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 16:14:46 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <568B88E1.9040000@bellis.me.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Cc: homenet-chairs , homenet@ietf.org, dnssd-chairs@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [homenet] Homenet Naming Architecture X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org 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: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 00:15:13 -0000 Dear Ray, Still willing. At the last IETF meeting during Bits and Bytes, Andrew Sullivan expressed concerns with respect to use of .home (4th) with a 60% YtoY increase and .corp (21st) with a 18% YtoY increase as TLD labels to declare non-multicast conventions for local names excluding multicast conventions related to .local. <2013> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/name-collision-02aug13-en.pdf ,-- At the high end, the cluster includes the proposed TLDs that occur with at least order-of-magnitude greater frequency than any others (corp and home) and those that occur most frequently in internal X.509 public key certificates (mail and exchange in addition to corp). '-- ,-- RECOMMENDATION 1: The TLDs .corp, .home, and .mail be referred to the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) for potential RFC 1918-like protection/treatment. '-- <2014> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/name-collision-mitigation-study-06jun14-en.pdf Suggest alternative TLDs proposed by http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6762 such as: .intranet. .internal. .private. .corp. .home. .lan. Avoids problems caused with use of .local. <2015> https://centr.org/document/4601 ,-- Conflict between RFC 6761 and the IETF-ICANN MoU (RFC 2860)? >From the organisational point of view, RFC 6761 had somewhat shifted the relation of the IETF and ICANN. According to RFC 2860 the IETF seized its role as a policy body for the DNS and ICANN and the latter now had a process to delegate names, albeit a heavy and costly one. A second open round for new TLD applications was just under consideration, Durand said. While the MoU had made an – albeit vague – exemption from the ICANN’s prerogative as the name space body in charge, RFC 6761 had slightly changed that. For the review now the intra-organisational problems (IETF lacking a process to reserve names due to 6761 vagueness) and the inter-organisational problems (was 6761 as such a violation of the MoU?) had to be considered. Questions around a potential invalidity of 6761 were quickly rejected as a potential “rat hole”. An opening up of 2860 – in order to renegotiate the roles of ICANN and IETF – were quickly dismissed by Arkko (“IESG asked WG to look at 6761. RFC 2860 is not on the table.”) '-- 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? Regards, Douglas Otis On 1/5/16 1:12 AM, Ray Bellis wrote: > Dear all, > > You each indicated willingness to work on a document for the Homenet WG > describing all aspects of Homenet Naming and Service Discovery. > > With the holidays out of the way and the New Year now upon us it would > be great if some progress could now be made on that. > > Assuming that you are still willing, would you like to agree a main > editor from amongst you? > > thanks, > > Ray From nobody Tue Jan 19 05:25:36 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3454D1B2E90 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 05:25:28 -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 0z0RkWdhxLoE for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 05:25:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx2.yitter.info (mx2.yitter.info [50.116.54.116]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE1F31B2E8E for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 05:25:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx2.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E893108AA for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 13:25:23 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at crankycanuck.ca Received: from mx2.yitter.info ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx2.yitter.info [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Sxn2OttFvcFJ for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 13:25:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx2.yitter.info (c-73-142-157-135.hsd1.nh.comcast.net [73.142.157.135]) by mx2.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1618F10875 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 13:25:22 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 08:25:19 -0500 From: Andrew Sullivan To: homenet@ietf.org Message-ID: <20160119132519.GW34398@mx2.yitter.info> References: <568B88E1.9040000@bellis.me.uk> <569D7FF6.1090109@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <569D7FF6.1090109@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [homenet] Homenet Naming Architecture X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org 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: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 13:25:28 -0000 On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 04:14:46PM -0800, Douglas Otis wrote: > Bytes, Andrew Sullivan expressed concerns with respect to > use of .home (4th) with a 60% YtoY increase and .corp (21st) > with a 18% YtoY increase as TLD labels to declare > non-multicast conventions for local names excluding > multicast conventions related to .local. The reason that I don't like home or corp is that they are both bound up in ICANN delegation issues. Let's just pick something unrelated to any of that, so that we can neatly avoid immediate problems of co-ordination. In any case, the label we pick is not an architecutral matter. It's the colour of the bikeshed. Or maybe the colour of the paint used on wood that is covered by a piece of trim on the bikeshed. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com From nobody Tue Jan 19 17:05:29 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65EF81B38A2 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 17:05:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: 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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id N7kgq1E4g4kw for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 17:05:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qg0-x232.google.com (mail-qg0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BDC7C1B38B6 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 17:05:26 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qg0-x232.google.com 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; d=gmail.com; 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; d=1e100.net; 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 10.140.216.20 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 smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 66sm6348467qhp.4.2016.01.19.17.05.23 (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: <569D7FF6.1090109@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 20:05:37 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <2D432DA4-F6A2-4BF4-953A-8D28AD7BFD92@gmail.com> References: <568B88E1.9040000@bellis.me.uk> <569D7FF6.1090109@gmail.com> To: Douglas Otis X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) Archived-At: Cc: dnssd-chairs@tools.ietf.org, Ray Bellis , Andrew Sullivan , Ray Hunter , Tim Chown , homenet-chairs , Ted.Lemon@nominum.com, homenet@ietf.org Subject: Re: [homenet] Homenet Naming Architecture X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org 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 Hi, 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. >=20 > 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= From nobody Wed Jan 20 13:10:16 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F2C41ACEB8 for ; Wed, 20 Jan 2016 13:10:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: 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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XfIKGlq0dqx6 for ; Wed, 20 Jan 2016 13:10:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pa0-x242.google.com (mail-pa0-x242.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::242]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E8D751ACEB6 for ; Wed, 20 Jan 2016 13:10:13 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pa0-x242.google.com with SMTP id pv5so821452pac.0 for ; Wed, 20 Jan 2016 13:10:13 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=XQ5VP/G/AqpkTKzKbN5fGe7oaHMOCtUOEXRmfN+X56g=; b=N3lxcbmVLd3bNA1AGwEX4+36ctvgCDHUSvrletekHJ/GCInhI6sw21IpaC7fCvssZk qrOxVuLkk2in1jx/iD5HM1gP/Q4scRpyzxayB7GCiQNvDXtCv0vVOsuYn/KO+CPiJPzJ hVuXA40tWUfQmBXExDgb3oFewIXq2BWyk3qp1M730dgJ//i9Qm1jNyu+Dq8KlSALx2se cS7K+FSruUXW2+c4wIGY7j0sT+npQHGaNq6hetHZFnWGXDWJrH1AV4ElSwvXQtXgJM6Z 7jduZrwAyoJZEkcQpda5gvup+Mp+0xEiHbTzpSzWzFRX2pzuGbm7nv8rwHLZJScqqPqD D2cw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=XQ5VP/G/AqpkTKzKbN5fGe7oaHMOCtUOEXRmfN+X56g=; b=aoLZN5J7bNe8beqE/gtvFNsLeD3EUlab17B3TGcShjiBu95o0nwU/UKzQHr+g3Jpxy OeaA9G4cnXt1nZv4CDdCztXSo/9rvjku5490gc8QYdnRF+5G86Y+Dyg5vMUPjaFLyiAJ nY70PojiwoHfNBROlg4BqlOivKG21ybpShmaaNF1qtQ6CiRAIBJYsHnpF1WgfpqcAz3E sAvO7VBMhC60FhWpIQiweb+jwdgdLSfnW2vc6NHLyEy4Z4SIvC81dCxVjSASuXwceZm7 y1OoWgkjr33k1Jlx2OSAhA7eRUwZS2RkyhSOwZOIrCVdk19Ik8cUhPGx6srrZpjh/Fff m7wA== X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YORW0AnhJVXQx6/fHJddeOiqBDTr5/PbKVUOET53b5D8ev4Ki5TqBxVdFMgemgmlZQ== X-Received: by 10.66.119.71 with SMTP id ks7mr41930714pab.71.1453324213579; Wed, 20 Jan 2016 13:10:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from US-DOUGO-MAC.local (107-0-5-6-ip-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net. [107.0.5.6]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id p71sm50848040pfa.11.2016.01.20.13.10.12 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 20 Jan 2016 13:10:12 -0800 (PST) To: Suzanne Woolf References: <568B88E1.9040000@bellis.me.uk> <569D7FF6.1090109@gmail.com> <2D432DA4-F6A2-4BF4-953A-8D28AD7BFD92@gmail.com> From: Douglas Otis X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Message-ID: <569FF7F6.20800@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 13:11:18 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <2D432DA4-F6A2-4BF4-953A-8D28AD7BFD92@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: dnssd-chairs@tools.ietf.org, Ray Bellis , Andrew Sullivan , Ray Hunter , Tim Chown , homenet-chairs , Ted.Lemon@nominum.com, homenet@ietf.org Subject: Re: [homenet] Homenet Naming Architecture X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org 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 21:10:15 -0000 On 1/19/16 5:05 PM, Suzanne Woolf wrote: > Hi, > > 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. Dear Suzanne, Names rather than addresses, especially for IPv6, is well ensconced as a means to establish user friendly network configuration access. As such, special names greatly aid network development, such as 'localhost' and '.local'. Homenet is attempting to instantiate multiple router configurations that function independent of external services. While names like 'localhost' and '.local' have greatly aided network development, these names are limited to immediate hosts or multicast. For this new environment, a name able to establish user friendly configuration access is needed. DNSSD WG has proposed and supports '.home' for this purpose. Lacking standards body leadership or guidance, equipment providers tend to use arbitrary names or hard-coded addresses to bootstrap even single router configurations. Homenet needs to standardize how to manage the configuration of multiple routers. As in the past, use of specialized names offered the least onerous solution. As '.home' has been adopted in various products, a special use names registry that includes at least this name is both prudent and vital at aiding local multiple router development. Methods to further instantiate names within this specialized environment is then better able to proceed and avoid interfering with existing services. Names included within this service might be derived from existing protocol hints and less likely though explicit user interaction. In any case, configuration must not depend on external services. Regards, Douglas Otis From nobody Wed Jan 20 21:36:14 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AFBE1B2F8F for ; Wed, 20 Jan 2016 21:36:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: 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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ssv7rhEvSr8m for ; Wed, 20 Jan 2016 21:36:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ob0-x22d.google.com (mail-ob0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 13AD31B2F8D for ; Wed, 20 Jan 2016 21:36:12 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ob0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id ba1so26925190obb.3 for ; Wed, 20 Jan 2016 21:36:12 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=jwTMUBXjlFmNDNHLMSql3RkDxWv8NLhQujdZzJzNqBs=; b=VHkMNYWX141hEN6w232KbcK7vZ0VvNkyj7htV0FpckF4x2d3LQYgbTmxMZDRPwLKvI QQwSzVmmox7NepqluI9t+yRo3hZmbceXmAF+VAkWBqD7aWhAAkG8W9pM1Pp5R/e4tPDr X3JqN7i1Zruvw/5fd67v8zRLveAZRzG98CJNzVLjquWFgOBDqLvE2ejut2Pcw9S/YBoE rrmOUWUN/9VP3WbiIVN9Ke+35e7H4tUJcSfPi8IW8P24fPohFsYhPAFCPTkZw7W6Ii7B O6ivwP94tzg9wIkkpDlmfQVNJ02Trl+9QseHMEcEHHga36uJFKk/m8GIoXwl9xQGbVk2 v47w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=jwTMUBXjlFmNDNHLMSql3RkDxWv8NLhQujdZzJzNqBs=; b=kwxKnQf5jRwjP/dOHC1zAkQHn/EZ/KLQi5AHLjh5prV6qmXDFy5ZahQjYICeN2WCE6 zidAZNagTNeTBXHb74ygWR67bKMhVsT94/aoiLj27rzo7VcrPlgQ7SShUbYhUkdUEDha LkKJTZbMi6RYGa7iG9iLjoVjvrgaKlC4aRtKGnQ7L6wFWv9/iwNZpyVEvxcs3Vad/heR 1xZGsXrz9IB5Qiu5LQgtIdGyrOJQD5Eoer5pDhczdj4qx7D6YQvHugATSaFTGBZVUTGi meuA3YeWBXMAB/Gm2dOVicsCzsv2y6C4/iJoEqWa3s3/7Dw4zrvZEIaPsgZKYcI646As tsVQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQltlMrY2Mc86u7ie4/SBDKN/xidlR8NeCwUkW+MXaAEHZa/LDoWMrvu0mJJwAiD99PR5OsWbGmPi7+U0hKtXr/ANTdADQ== X-Received: by 10.182.131.202 with SMTP id oo10mr32621455obb.72.1453354571515; Wed, 20 Jan 2016 21:36:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from US-DOUGO-MAC.local (c-24-6-60-244.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [24.6.60.244]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id a128sm19786028oig.3.2016.01.20.21.36.10 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 20 Jan 2016 21:36:10 -0800 (PST) To: Ted Lemon References: <568B88E1.9040000@bellis.me.uk> <569D7FF6.1090109@gmail.com> <2D432DA4-F6A2-4BF4-953A-8D28AD7BFD92@gmail.com> <569FF7F6.20800@gmail.com> From: Douglas Otis X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Message-ID: <56A06E41.7010408@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 21:36:01 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: Stuart Cheshire , homenet@ietf.org, Ray Bellis Subject: Re: [homenet] Homenet Naming Architecture X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org 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: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 05:36:13 -0000 Dear Ted and Ray, For many users, Internet obtainable services are fairly limited. One major advantage offered by the Homenet approach is an ability to cobble together several "limited" providers to improve reliability. The TLD '.lo' looks somewhat like a ccTLD and '.lan' has already been suggested. Since ICANN asked '.lan' and '.home' be set-aside, why worry about contested naming authority in these cases? .home or .lan or .lo should not be considered catch-all domains since they would not be visible beyond the local network and yet function locally beyond uplink outages. It seems counter-productive to suggest schemes where Internet services must work in conjunction with DNS dedicated at exposing previously private services whose visibility is normally limited to the local network. Why should private internal naming even depend on external DNS? Such an approach is unlikely to be more robust and what happens when uplinks go down? Apple learned a valuable lesson when abandoning .me hosting. Now it seems Homenet is intent at offering similar hosting services. Such an effort is likely to necessitate an inordinate level of support and incur additional risk. Are providers interested in supporting dedicates DNS that sync addresses and names for all internal services without substantial cost increases? Whether a multi-router system makes use of site dedicated public DNS or not, a naming convention able to extend beyond the bridge is still needed to properly support multi-device multi-vendor system configuration, especially in cases where trickle and babel don't meet their expectations. Naming conventions able to span bridges would be able to adapt to any number of strategies that might be used over Homenet development and deployment. Regards, Douglas Otis From nobody Thu Jan 21 06:41:20 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homenet@ietf.org Delivered-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 241011A8892; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 06:41:19 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.13.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20160121144119.21070.97197.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 06:41:19 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: homenet@ietf.org Subject: [homenet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-homenet-routing-consensus-call-01.txt X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: IETF Homenet WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 14:41:19 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Home Networking Working Group of the IETF. Title : Homenet Routing Consensus Call Authors : Ray Bellis Mark Townsley Filename : draft-ietf-homenet-routing-consensus-call-01.txt Pages : 4 Date : 2016-01-21 Abstract: In order to support arbitrary network topologies and multi-homing the IETF Homenet Architecture [RFC7368] requires that a routing protocol operates inside each home network. For interoperability reasons it is necessary for there be a single "mandatory to implement" routing protocol. With the Homenet Working Group unable to reach clear consensus on which protocol that should be the Working Group Chairs (with the support of the Internet Area Director) declared rough consensus that the chosen protocol is BABEL [RFC6126]. This document (not intended for publication as an RFC) serves as an additional record of that decision. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-homenet-routing-consensus-call/ There's also a htmlized version available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-homenet-routing-consensus-call-01 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-homenet-routing-consensus-call-01 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Thu Jan 21 11:06:58 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 310041A8A98 for ; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 11:06:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4 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, GB_I_LETTER=-2, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 ooeF7pgU5TLc for ; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 11:06:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pf0-x234.google.com (mail-pf0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 00FFF1A8A94 for ; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 11:06:55 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pf0-x234.google.com with SMTP id q63so28844167pfb.1 for ; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 11:06:55 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:from:organization:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=S/D5ML14fTloHEtLYHrn234+lSpNPCPTC1ufOuXHdIg=; b=M7l7vLzeYOWM/eCqT/NhTjK5E6fJlWJaTyd1tFdrLO0uXkl6tXaZdd9OkneklfX+Jo JChk7HwnLRG9bs9eJ12TceSxJv7O7AJj840juoXRi0RM6VZzSN64/5s4w5Yf69n0tuKY nWZ5dm1oVokmGjR11x1C1exHbtovF/4fjnzg843fCLtbAntmAh1DRjfc2g3ETZeIk7s3 gd30nY0eqJObBeDiyq02Im70ESE24t9BslGS7INF7MbCSpEowsrw20MiaJ5HulmNQtv0 xNWgGb7MILdAkuGraQWdyEOv+DD8NNlhQFV2KdLPZcG+7AiG8Lu3fH6ST00j6Kdpk3cF WsTA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=S/D5ML14fTloHEtLYHrn234+lSpNPCPTC1ufOuXHdIg=; b=KVSHhidRfvvD2yK71ClXnghK2+Kd4H96fZoLpl8cdpKd7Z2yx2WfsWoNRmoJdb1Cid YvPg+pBkrdLebPxq/xNjy6zCKQwkcjQMcIgGUuSG4AblLu1RlrOL5r+1UwxfHyC4QHb6 vdPxxPnw8M6Jdm8kIGe7dR9r78gokP2S7tMPQkP/vxUA2lHRGN2+W6yJOq5cBsywRK5E 57i3PEULpSu2BYABLJHZo6w6rHGFTHdqPPn11kti9KuWZn5jsPn/mP1xGpPlweW21CWP /fL9gRcKatR0PSMYperkbQjawybF/3ziY/XfExTE6tCgoSMq2/WUHIu2LnDqWWNMd/Qt 0inw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkb9T4xOiSBnW9iJmvceu7oPV3h5llEEDMZBq30YWP8OVsAP8G6ePbjQFMHf3qLOlN+QIKD3vkrln8nrh51b/Ry8ep2NA== X-Received: by 10.98.66.77 with SMTP id p74mr63513801pfa.43.1453403215448; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 11:06:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:6d38:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:6d38:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 89sm4382889pfi.2.2016.01.21.11.06.52 for (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 21 Jan 2016 11:06:54 -0800 (PST) To: homenet@ietf.org References: <568B88E1.9040000@bellis.me.uk> <569D7FF6.1090109@gmail.com> <2D432DA4-F6A2-4BF4-953A-8D28AD7BFD92@gmail.com> <569FF7F6.20800@gmail.com> <56A06E41.7010408@gmail.com> From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland Message-ID: <56A12C55.5060707@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 08:07:01 +1300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <56A06E41.7010408@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [homenet] Homenet Naming Architecture X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org 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: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 19:06:57 -0000 On 21/01/2016 18:36, Douglas Otis wrote: ... > The TLD '.lo' looks somewhat like a ccTLD AFAIK, two letter TLDs are all implicitly reserved since any of them might pop up in ISO 3166 in the future. I'm not enough of an ICANNologist to point to where this is established (to my surprise, it is not established by RFC 1591). LO is currently unassigned in ISO 3166, but of course that could change as a result of some future geopolitical event. So it would be really foolish of the IETF to consider .lo at all. Brian