On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 01:03:11PM +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > It certainly is. But see > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carpenter-referral-ps > especially section 4.2 "FQDNs are not sufficient".
I thought one of the things we were trying to do was to address exactly the failure modes in that section of the I-D? Perhaps I'm being naive, but I've been working from the assumption that, if you want to talk to something on the Internet, you need an unambiguous way to identify it. Historically, the best we've had for that has been the DNS, because it provides a layer of indirection so that you can have stable identifiers in the face of changing IP addresses. Given the way the relevant markets have gone, it turns out that DNS names are rather harder to administer and use for ordinary end users than we might like. But there's no reason that has to persist, and it seems to me that if we're going to solve the problems people have using homenet-type resources on the global Internet, then solving the DNS piece in a user-friendly way is going to yield greater benefit than alternatives like ginning up some trick to make mDNS names sometimes work outside their natural context. Best, A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
