Martin Duke via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> wrote:
> (4.1) There's an editorial error here.
> "An authoritative server might be tempted to provide an IP address literal
> inside the protocol: there are two arguments (anti-patterns) for doing
this."
> I'm expecting two reasons someone might use an IP literal.
> "The first is that it eliminates problems with firmware updates that
might be
> caused by lack of DNS..."
> Yep, that tracks.
> "The second reason to avoid a IP address literal in the URL is when an
inhouse
> content-distribution system is involved..."
> But this is making the opposite point! It appears that this section is
actually
> presenting ONE (not two) reason to use IP literals, and then several
reasons
> that's a bad idea. So say that!
In my mind, an in-house CDN is a bunch of HTTP/FTP servers which just don't
have DNS names, because someone hacked the system together in an afternoon.
Let me think about how to rephrase that. Or maybe it's really just two
examples of the same thing, and as you say, it's not two reasons, but two
kinds of one reason.
Or maybe I missed another reason to use literals.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =- *I*LIKE*TRAINS*
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
