>> While I would have expressed it in somewhat milder terms, I tend to agree >> with Michael. If HNCP gets massively deployed together with a naming >> protocol that is easy to implement, the host implementations will come in >> due time.
> I'm not sure what problem you and Michael are claiming needs to be > solved here or could be addressed by HNCP, us or the working group in > some way. All I'm saying, Steven, is that "no host changes" is no excuse -- if we deply easy to implement protocols that provide desirable functionality, the host changes will follow. Perhaps mDNS proxying solves all the naming issues with no host changes required -- if so, that's excellent. Should we find that it doesn't, however, we should not avoid doing the right thing just because somebody confused "no host changes must be required" with "no host changes will be done". -- Juliusz _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
