All the way down...

On 11.04.18 18:15, Robert Sparks wrote:
>
>>
>> Similarly, the use of the word standardized naked like that is
>> probably unhelpful.
> Can I infer you plan to edit it out or dress it more?

Yes.

>> One could imagine, for instance, Fairhair or some other consortium
>> deciding to create standard classes.
>>
>> What I propose is two changes to facilitate better understanding:
>>
>>  1. To include the simple example described above.
>>  2. To add an optional "documentation"  element in the "mud"
>>     container that consists of a URL that points to documents for
>>     each class, when so used.
>>
> Sure.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
> With this, I'm puzzled about the use of the word standardized at all.
> I think I'm hearing that you expect MUD controllers to know about some
> well-known classes by convention and that groups like fairhair or
> someone else might make a list of classes that MUD controllers might
> collectively decide to build in knowledge of. Am I getting closer to
> the right picture? (This is opposed to a set of classes that are
> created by a standards action and listed in a registry somewhere).

The class is just a name that expands out to a bunch of IP addresses. 
It happens to take the form of a URI, but it's really just a name. 
There could be well known NAMES, and indeed we create a URN registry
just for that purpose.  Maybe I need to be a bit more clearer on that point?

Eliot
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

Reply via email to