Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?

From: Dave Crocker <dhc2 at dcrocker.net>
To: ietf at ietf.org
Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2008 10:19:45 -0700
In-reply-to: <200807032314.m63NEY56048085 at drugs.dv.isc.org>
References: <200807032314.m63NEY56048085 at drugs.dv.isc.org>

	There is a difference between allowing protocol to be used
	in a "local" only mode (single label) and a "global" mode
	(multi-label) and saying you must support single label in
	a global context.

If a protocol is used in a global mode, the problem with trying to use it in atailored, local mode is that the various defaults of the local context are notcarried with the data that escapes into the global context.

There must be perfect gatewaying between the two contexts and this almost neverachieved.


d/

--

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

References:
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?
  - From: Mark Andrews

Prev by Date: Services and top-level DNS names (was: Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?)
Next by Date: RE: Services and top-level DNS names (was: Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?)
Previous by thread: Re: Services and top-level DNS names
Next by thread: RE: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.

Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.