In section 3, the draft hijacks "local.". Not "_local." or
"local.arpa.", but "local.".
"hijacks" is the wrong word. stuart asked long and hard for a forward-name
that was nonuniversal in the way that rfc1918 addresses are, and finally he
did what a lot of people do when faced with entrenched ietf religion -- he
shipped his product. so where you say "hijacked" i say "liberated".
I wouldn't even use "liberated" ... I'd simply say "implemented." .local is
a good example of something that went very wrong in the IETF. The debate
seemed to hinge on religious principles like universality and ignored pretty
basic things like "do you have code that works?" and "would it really hurt
other things if we did this?"
This is all theoretical anyway: there is a huge installed base of people who
use .local and the development of rendezvous-aware applications like
SubEthaEdit
are some of the more exciting apps I've run across lately. The fact that
the mechanisms used aren't documented in the RFC series is our loss ...
Carl
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf