Ah, that makes much more sense. That's true, however there are some existing solutions that partially work, and I don't think them bad. Limited, yes, but not bad. So it isn't crazy to think of extending them.
Andrew On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 1:49 AM, Michael Thomas <[email protected]> wrote: > On 03/13/2013 09:23 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > >> On Mar 13, 2013, at 8:26 PM, Michael Thomas <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Mike, purposeful luddite >>> >> It's worth noting that we _do_ need to serve the needs of people who buy >> and use modern devices, not just luddites, much as we may fondly prefer to >> be luddites ourselves. >> > > My point here all along is that there is no inevitability about the > so-called > status quo about the way things are named on homenets. This is still in its > infancy and we should do the right thing rather than figure out how to hack > on bad solutions to make them suck less. > > Mike > > ______________________________**_________________ > homenet mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/homenet<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet> >
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
