Re: [salud] Domain names as <provider> values

worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley) Wed, 21 May 2014 19:27 UTC

Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 15:27:36 -0400
Message-Id: <201405211927.s4LJRaF3002039@hobgoblin.ariadne.com>
From: worley@ariadne.com
Sender: worley@ariadne.com
To: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
In-reply-to: <537BDFE8.4050208@alum.mit.edu> (pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu)
References: <201405202015.s4KKFqFU018461@hobgoblin.ariadne.com> <537BDFE8.4050208@alum.mit.edu>
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/salud/LF7zjDgnnXySdbwlLdWYCN4hx7Y
Cc: salud@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [salud] Domain names as <provider> values
Precedence: list

> From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>

> In practice I am quite certain that what we *really* expect is that most 
> private names will be *very* private, and that they will fall out of use 
> when the owner disappears. Collisions will be rare, and unimportant if 
> they do occur.

What I expect is that (at least in initial use) private names will be
used only between PBX switches and phones made by a particular vendor.
So they'll be public in the sense that they will appear in the
documentation for the PBXs, but they'll be private in the sense that
they won't appear in inter-organization traffic.

For provider values, there doesn't seem to be a solution that meets
all the requirements we'd like.

Dale

[salud] Domain names as <provider> values Dale R. Worley
Re: [salud] Domain names as <provider> values Paul Kyzivat
Re: [salud] Domain names as <provider> values Dale R. Worley