> 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".
I agree. To me, "no host changes must be required" says that everything hosts can do today, they will still be able to do inside a homenet, without changing. But there is nothing that should prevent homenet from putting in capabilities that will provide a better experience for hosts that do change. Just so long as what's there doesn't break. It's a backward compatibility requirement. For capabilities aimed at "better without breaking", I personally would prefer ones that don't require user involvement to make them work and that don't create new avenues for threats to privacy and security. Barbara _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
