On Wed, 1 Oct 2003, Doug Barton wrote: > The problem with this argument is that it's a slippery slope.
Agreed here. > It sounds > totally reasonable to say, "As long as we have X, we might as well > include Y." However, the address(es) of the recursive name servers > aren't that useful without a search list. Why do you need a search list? I certainly don't. Just remember which scenarios we'd be targeting the solution. The target audience would _very probably_ *not* be the enterprise network. > Then, once you get into a > windows environment you really need the netbios name server address.... In an environment of one hop (e.g. home), the lookups can go directly over the LAN I think? And in some cases, it isn't really necessary, as Windows environements may not be used at all in some environments where this is envisioned. > etc. Once you get done with that, you've invented something that looks > an awful lot like dhcp. What if the mechanism is not meant to be an every-purpose tool for service discovery, but rather, for every specific purposes only? The one example I personally have used a couple of times is my laptop at the IETF or in some other network I plug it to. I don't care less about DHCP, NTP (the clock is good enough already), Windows environments, search paths, etc. -- I just want the DNS and be done with it..! -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings #---------------------------------------------------------------------- # To unsubscribe, send a message to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
