> Keith - I think we might actually be more in agreement than > disagreement. You have pointed out several places where I wasn't clear; > let me see if I can clarify...
thanks for the clarification - it's a bit of a relief... > 2. My wording for requirement 12 was unclear. What I meant was "if > the host requests information about DNS servers, the list of servers > can be customized for that host". I don't intend that a network > admin can force a host to use a specific set of DNS servers; rather, > different hosts can get configured with different lists of DNS > servers wow...I didn't get that at all from the first reading - I think the above text is much better. > 3. If interpreted as absolute, binary requirements, 7 and 8 are > quite likely fantasies. I intend 7 and 8 to be goals that proposed > solutions can be measured against. I guess I don't see this as a very useful yardstick because 'no additional protocol definition' is too vague. > 4. In requirement 6, I was trying to express the requirement that > the host can trust the servers it learns about through DNS > configuration. If that wording is clearer, I'll use it in the > requirements list. I'm not sure I understand this - what does it mean for a host to be able to 'trust' those servers? seems like the best you can hope for is some sort of site signature that says "yep, these really are the addresses of the servers we think you should use". Keith -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
