On 13/03/2013 20:54, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Mar 13, 2013, at 4:01 PM, Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> wrote: >> All of this is lacking in section 3.7. If I were a contractor using this >> "architecture" >> I wouldn't know what to build. > > The architecture document acts as a basis for the work that you, as a > contractor, would build from. You can't build from an architecture > document, unless you are a lot smarter than we are.
OK, but that doesn't mean that the *architecture* should punt on principles of the namespace. I'll put down a marker: local namespaces are ambiguous and therefore should not be part of an architecture. However, there is a way to reconcile this with pragmatic use of .local - stipulate that when a global name is needed for a local resource, it is <name>.local.<subscriber>.<isp>. That requires some namespace knitting but it is architecturally clean. Brian _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
