Wessels, Duane wrote:
>
> all .home
> US27.40% 14.27%
> CN14.86% 6.47%
> BR6.23% 9.69% <-
> KR5.35%
> RU3.61% 6.60% <-
> TW3.04% 2.34%
> NL3.03% 5.45% <-
> GB2.50% 7.41% <-
> DE2.10%
> IT1.67%
So .home queries are disproportion
> On Nov 6, 2015, at 12:10 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
>
> Hi Duane,
>
> On 6 Nov 2015, at 14:32, Wessels, Duane wrote:
>
>>> On Nov 5, 2015, at 3:26 AM, Tony Finch wrote:
>>>
>>> Has anyone done a survey of where the leaked .home queries come from?
>>
>> In the spirit of Measurement-Driven Protoc
Wessels, Duane wrote:
> On Nov 5, 2015, at 3:26 AM, Tony Finch wrote:
> >
> > Has anyone done a survey of where the leaked .home queries come from?
>
> In the spirit of Measurement-Driven Protocol Engineering here are some
> recent data points from root servers:
Wow, cool, and totally not what I
> On Nov 5, 2015, at 3:26 AM, Tony Finch wrote:
>
> Has anyone done a survey of where the leaked .home queries come from?
In the spirit of Measurement-Driven Protocol Engineering here are some recent
data points from root servers:
Over the past 7 days Verisign observed an average of 200,000,0
On 05/11/2015 10:11, George Michaelson wrote:
> So can somebody explain to me what we are meant to do with a possible
> emerging homenet desire for .home?
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cheshire-homenet-dot-home/
This particular proposal was being discussed long before any of the
.o
George Michaelson wrote:
> So can somebody explain to me what we are meant to do with a possible
> emerging homenet desire for .home?
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cheshire-homenet-dot-home/
(I can't see any discussion of this draft on the homenet list so I don't
know if this questi
On Thursday, November 05, 2015 10:16:19 AM Tim WIcinski wrote:
> I believe the IESG guidance given to us is that no Special Use Domain
> Names will be addressed until the 6761 "scaling issue" has a direction.
tellingly, the technologies that will surround "homenet" will also be relevant
to SOHO a
The authors of this draft was alerted when -00 was initially submitted
that this approval needed to pass through DNSOP.
On 11/5/15 10:19 AM, George Michaelson wrote:
Which demands pretty direct pushback on the AD and WG chairs, because
otherwise, we're just building a huge queue of pent-up
Which demands pretty direct pushback on the AD and WG chairs, because
otherwise, we're just building a huge queue of pent-up demand for names.
Names we might decide we don't think should happen, or happen a different
way.
If we allow WG adoption in another WG of something which heads into an
activ
I believe the IESG guidance given to us is that no Special Use Domain
Names will be addressed until the 6761 "scaling issue" has a direction.
On 11/5/15 10:11 AM, George Michaelson wrote:
So can somebody explain to me what we are meant to do with a possible
emerging homenet desire for .home?
So can somebody explain to me what we are meant to do with a possible
emerging homenet desire for .home?
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cheshire-homenet-dot-home/
because I believe this isn't just the tail of odd requests from the tor
people for various hash based names.. its another WG i
11 matches
Mail list logo
