Hi Michael, There is no policy or technical barrier to proceeding with SOMETHING.arpa. Procedurally that, of course, would necessitate some WG discussion and consensus.
Cheers
Terry
On 30/03/2017, 1:07 AM, "DNSOP on behalf of Michael Richardson"
<dnsop-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> wrote:
Terry Manderson <terry.mander...@icann.org> wrote:
> B) seek a .homenet special use domain WITHOUT the delegation request
> AND ask the IETF/IESG/IAB to commence the discussion with the ICANN
> community to achieve an insecure delegation
> c) seek a <SOMETHING>.arpa insecure special use delegation
> d) go for "B" and if that doesn't work shift to "C"
Is there some reason we can not proceed with "C", concurrently with (B).
This might cause stub resolvers to have to have two cases
(SOMETHING.arpa, and .homenet) eventually, but at least we could deploy
and attempt interop with SOMETHING.arpa NOW, and it would more clearly
permit "home." to be removed from code.
> Again, this situation is fluid and as discussions evolve I will
provide
> more information when it is appropriate. In the mean-time I would very
> much like everyone to take a calming breath and understand that I am
> taking a very pragmatic view of this concern.
Thank you!
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
