Re: [Lwip] Lwip Digest, Vol 20, Issue 3

Naming things is generally a good idea. What is not so clear is whether the DNS is always the best place to keep the mapping from these names to the addresses behind them.  Even where it is being used, it is not clear whether the object itself is the entity responsible for establishing the mapping.  I think it will be interesting to see how the smart object discovery architectures will evolve and what role DNS will play in each of them.

Sent from Mobile

On 28.05.2012, at 10:26, Zhen Cao <zehn.cao@gmail.com> wrote:

> The sensor, if acting like a server, should have a name for its IP
> reachability.
> 
> On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
>> The question here is: what is the point of registering a smart obiect's name without providing a way to know its resources.
>> 
>> Sent from Mobile
>> 
>> On 28.05.2012, at 07:46, Zhen Cao <zehn.cao@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
>>>> On May 23, 2012, at 09:58, Marc Lampo wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> an object registering itself
>>>> 
>>>> Most current activity in this space is around Zach/Srdjan's resource directory draft.
>>>> 
>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-shelby-core-resource-directory
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I think the context of is about registration of the dns names, not
>>> data content.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Grüße, Carsten
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Lwip mailing list
>>>> Lwip@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Best regards,
>>> Zhen
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Best regards,
> Zhen