And is there a description of the "local name resolution library" (quoting Dave) that meets the requirements of the softwires usage expectation? That is, does the softwires WG expect "the usual" behavior by just handing the contents of the option to the local name resolution library, or by formulating several different FQDNs according to some specific rules, or ???
- Ralph On Nov 10, 2010, at 10:15 AM 11/10/10, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Nov 10, 2010, at 9:50 AM, Alain Durand wrote: >> Why can't we just say: "pass this to the local DNS resolver" and be done? >> Why should the process of going through the search list be specified in this >> draft? > > This is a good point. I think there's a tension here between being overly > prescriptive and not saying anything at all, though. Is there an RFC that > describes resolver in such a way that it could be referenced here? It's all > in RFC1034, but not in such a way that you could make a meaningful and > concise reference to it. > > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
