Stephen Farrell wrote:
> On 05/06/2021 19:46, Michael Richardson wrote:
>> Well, I'd be happy to discuss with this them again, but they'd have to
>> actually tell us what "DDNS" really is for them.
> Just to clarify: I don't think/claim DDNS is "better" than
> the proposal he
Hi Michael,
On 05/06/2021 19:46, Michael Richardson wrote:
Well, I'd be happy to discuss with this them again, but they'd have to
actually tell us what "DDNS" really is for them.
Just to clarify: I don't think/claim DDNS is "better" than
the proposal here, rather I don't find the arguments as
Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
>>> Stephen and Juliusz expressed that they're still not convinced that
>>> DDNS isn't a good enough solution for the use case.
>> Well, I'd be happy to discuss with this them again, but they'd have to
>> actually tell us what "DDNS" really is for them.
