On 19/03/2013 20:39, Michael Thomas wrote: > 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?
No particular need, but since .local is out there already, it seems harmless. Brian _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
