> On Mar 29, 2017, at 10:07 AM, Michael Richardson <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).
I think that would require a new consensus call. There was a lot of work done to get to the point of agreeing on a path forward at the last IETF, and this path would be rather different than that. > 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. > /chair-hat-off I don’t think we want to have two defaults in our specs. It’s bad enough that we are already going to end up with .home and .homenet depending on the version of code used or forked from, I really don’t want to do anything that could lead to a third if we can avoid it. - Mark >> 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 =- > > > > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > home...@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
