Re: Transport requirements for DNS-like protocols

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Friday, 28 June, 2002 10:25 -0400 Eric Brunner-Williams in
Portland Maine <[e-mail]> wrote:

>> It could be construed as off-topic for ...
> 
> I wouldn't say its off topic. Then again, there may be several
> topics that resemble "transport requirements".

Rob, Eric, Michael, and others,

To the extent to which I have a voice here, I don't want to
waste time on "on topic" versus "off topic" discussions.  As the
last few notes have again made clear (at least to me), we are
still at the stage of asking rather basic questions about the
nature of this approach.   They are questions I would have
preferred to have gotten to many months ago, but so it goes...
they are clearly important.  The question of client-side versus
server-side functions and what can reasonably be transported and
how are, it seems to be, to be absolutely critical.  And if some
of you/us believe that teasing out transport details is useful
to making those decisions, or even to getting to how to think
about those decisions, I think it is on-topic, and probably in
the critical path.

For whatever it is worth, one of the main reasons I haven't
tried to turn "dns-role" into a protocol specification is
because I haven't felt we have anything resembling an informed
consensus around these issues.  So I'm delighted that the
conversation has started.

    john