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@xxxxxxxxxxxx Shinkuro, Inc. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf