On 03/13/2013 02:01 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Mar 13, 2013, at 4:14 PM, Michael Thomas <[email protected]> wrote:
Why is it "likely"? This can very easily be rewritten to be agnostic as to
who provides a global naming service for a homenet. If there isn't anything
extenuating, that is what should be done.
I think agnostic is good, but illustrative examples are good as well, and the
two I would suggest are that the ISP provides a mechanism for naming, and that
a cloud service provides a mechanism for naming. Obviously you can also set
up your own name service, but I don't think this is a good example for the use
case we are trying to address.
Illustrative works for me too. The reason I push back on "ISP" is because it can
be misconstrued to have some topological and/or security necessity. Which I'm
pretty sure the authors are not intending.
Mike
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
