On 03/14/2013 01:43 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 13/03/2013 20:54, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Mar 13, 2013, at 4:01 PM, Michael Thomas <[email protected]> wrote:
All of this is lacking in section 3.7. If I were a contractor using this
"architecture"
I wouldn't know what to build.
The architecture document acts as a basis for the work that you, as a
contractor, would build from. You can't build from an architecture document,
unless you are a lot smarter than we are.
OK, but that doesn't mean that the *architecture* should punt on principles
of the namespace.
I'll put down a marker: local namespaces are ambiguous and therefore should
not be part of an architecture.
I agree.
However, there is a way to reconcile this
with pragmatic use of .local - stipulate that when a global name is needed
for a local resource, it is <name>.local.<subscriber>.<isp>.
That requires some namespace knitting but it is architecturally clean.
If you had a place to hook into the global namespace, why ever use .local
at all?
Mike
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
