On 10/22/2012 09:30 AM, Kerry Lynn wrote:
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 12:15 PM, Michael Thomas <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 10/22/2012 07:22 AM, Tim Chown wrote:
And I don't think this possibility is excluded at all by the current
arch text either. It talks of an authoritative name service running on the CER,
with a dynamic registration service (e.g. dyndns). I have added 'as far as
possible' to the unmanaged text.
It's been hard for me to gauge what is and isn't in scope on the naming
front. For the most part, this wg looks like it's only interested in putting
some band-aides on mdns/dns-sd. That's a mistake, IMO, because there's
nothing inevitable about a zeroconf driven design. We should consider
littleconf solutions especially for naming because there is no way that
mikes-toothbrush.mtcc.com <http://mikes-toothbrush.mtcc.com> got named that
way coming from the factory.
Not sure how you can draw that conclusion; there seem to be lovers and
haters of mDNS.
I just re-read the charter and it seems that it precludes discussing anything
else besides mdns/dns-sd:
For name
resolution and service discovery, extensions to existing
multicast-based name resolution protocols are needed to enable them to
work across subnets.
I wasn't around for the drafting of the charter, but it seems very short sighted
to not even talk about what the problem is before mandating a solution. So
if you don't think mdns is The Answer, it looks like you're SOL.
Mike
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
