On 13 Mar 2013, at 21:12, Michael Thomas <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
Agreed. The "likely" comment stems from the most likely provision coming from the entity the homenet already has a relationship with by entering into a contract for connectivity. There are opportunities for other providers to offer services in this area in the future, for sure. Tim _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
