On 13 Mar 2013, at 20:11, Michael Thomas <[email protected]> wrote: > On 03/13/2013 11:20 AM, Tim Chown wrote: >> >>> 3.7.3 Namespaces >>> >>> It's not clear to me why a single namespace is "desirable". Do rebellious >>> teenagers >>> really want to be part of their fuddy-duddy parent's namespace? Does it even >>> matter, architecturally? At least some motivation would be helpful. Part of >>> my >>> uncomfort here is that there is a hidden assumption that a "home" is an >>> indivisible >>> unit. Is that really true? >> A fair point, a homenet realm may have its own namespace, potentially. Or >> any specific device could always independently use some 3rd party dynamic >> DNS service. > > The reason I bring this up is that I don't understand why a single namespace > is "desirable". What are the implications if that is not the case? What > assumedly > bad thing will happen if that's not the case? What goodness flows if it is? > > If there's some hidden assumption here, it would be nice for it to be made > explicit. > If there really is no motivation for this, it should just be deleted.
It has been reworded to "at least one". It's "desirable" in as much as not having one is highly undesirable, at least if you want remote access. Tim _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
