> On Dec 14, 2016, at 4:48 PM, Ray Bellis <r...@bellis.me.uk> wrote: > > > > On 14/12/2016 21:16, Jim Reid wrote: > >> So what? End users are not expected to see this string, far less care >> about it, are they? Surely this string is primarily, if not >> exclusively, for CPE firmware? > > Actually, yes, they are expected to see this thing. > > It would be what would appear in their browser bar, for example, if > accessing the web UI of various on-net devices or services.
I know the WG has decided that home network device names should be user-friendly, so I'll make something of a moot point..."seeing" isn't the issue, in my opinion. I see ugly names and URLs in my browser bar all the time. "typing" is the real issue ... any time a user has to know, remember and reproduce a name for manuaal text entry, user-friendliness is important. - Ralph > >> Perhaps the way to resolve that is to tackle those misunderstandings >> and any FUD around them. The self-same issue was discussed ad nauseam >> ~15 years ago over ENUM. >> >> IMO, the question here for the advocates of a TLD for home networks >> (for some definition of that term) is “what specifically can you do >> with .homenet (say) that you can’t do with homenet.arpa (say)?” ie >> What are the use case(s) and problem statement(s) that need to be >> addressed? And, as a logical followup, are those issues valid? > > The arguments in favour of a pseudo-TLD are (AFAIK) entirely user > orientated, and not technical. > > Ray > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
