On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 02:12:01PM -0500, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
The alternative would be to not use .local at all and insist on that
approach as a means of avoiding ICANNs perceived perogatives. I think
that would be a bad idea as the spec would not serve its intended
purpose.
I've been puzzling over what to make of that message since receiving
it, and I still don't know. Since you admit in your last sentence
that leaving .local out would in fact not achieve the goal of
documenting a protocol in wide use (even if in limited cases, and in a
way not apaprently enterprisey enough for your taste), why would you
leave out .local?
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs(_at_)shinkuro(_dot_)com
Shinkuro, Inc.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf