<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd">
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc compact="yes" ?>
<?rfc symrefs="no"?>

<rfc obsoletes="" updates="RFC7788" category="std" ipr="trust200902"
     docName="draft-ietf-homenet-redact-03">
  <front>
    <title abbrev="HNCP Redact">Redacting .home from HNCP</title>

    <author initials="T" surname="Lemon" fullname="Ted Lemon">
      <organization>Nominum, Inc.</organization>
      <address>
	<postal>
	  <street>800 Bridge Parkway</street>
	  <city>Redwood City</city>
	  <region>California</region>
	  <country>United States of America</country>
	  <code>94065</code>
	</postal>
	<phone>+1 650 381 6000</phone>
	<email>ted.lemon@nominum.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    
    <date year="2017" month="March" day="13"></date>
    <area>Internet</area>
    <workgroup>Home Networking</workgroup>
    <abstract>
      <t>
	This document updates the Home Networking Control Protocol, eliminating the
	recommendation for a default top-level name for local name resolution.
      </t>
    </abstract>
  </front>

  <middle>
    <section title="Introduction">
      <t>
	The Homenet working group has defined a mechanism for sharing information between
	homenet routers, in Home Networking Control Protocol <xref target="RFC7788"/>.
	That document recommends the use of the ".home" top-level name as a
	locally-resolved domain name.
      </t>

      <t>
	RFC7788 did not follow the process defined in Special Use Domain Names
	<xref target="RFC6761"/>, or specify how other software should deal
	with the allocated name.  It is likely that, had this process been followed, it
	would not have been possible to gain consensus on the use of '.home' as the
	locally-resolved special-use top-level name for homenets, because this name is
	known to be informally in use by sites on the internet, and the use to which this
	name has been put is not well documented; it is impossible to say that there are
	no conflicting uses for the name, and so getting consensus to use it anyway would
	have been controversial, time consuming, and possibly futile.
      </t>

      <t>
	The RFC6761 process is not well-understood within the IETF, and the authors of
	RFC7788 were not aware of it.  Normally, authors are not expected to know all
	there is to know about IETF process, and IETF leadership, specifically working
	group chairs, area directors and directorate members are expected to engage in a
	review process that notices oversights of this sort.
      </t>

      <t>
	Unfortunately, in the case of RFC7788, none of the people who should have caught
	the missing RFC6761 reference did catch it, and RFC 7788 was published as a
	consensus document that uses '.home' without ever reserving it in the RFC6761
	Special-Use Domain Names registry.
      </t>
    </section>

    <section title="Updates to Home Networking Control Protocol">
      <t>
	This document updates RFC 7788: '.home' MUST NOT be used as the default name for
        resolution within the home network.  The new default value is specified in
        <xref target="I-D.pfister-homenet-dot"/>
      </t>
    </section>
  </middle>
  
  <back>
    <references title="Normative References">
      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.6761" ?>
      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.7788" ?>
      <?rfc include="reference.I-D.pfister-homenet-dot" ?>
    </references>
  </back>
</rfc>

<!-- Keep this comment at the end of the file
Local variables:
mode: sgml
fill-column:90
sgml-omittag:t
sgml-shorttag:t
sgml-namecase-general:t
sgml-general-insert-case:lower
sgml-minimize-attributes:nil
sgml-always-quote-attributes:t
sgml-indent-step:2
sgml-indent-data:t
sgml-parent-document:nil
sgml-exposed-tags:nil
sgml-local-catalogs:nil
sgml-local-ecat-files:nil
End:
-->
