At 08:45 AM 9/26/01 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote: > > For at least some things, we need a system that > > is more stable with less administrative overhead > > than your proposal. > >Ah... then you agree it's potentially a good idea? >Yes, I'd like to see something more scalable too. If you accept the value of some names being allocated through a consensus process, doesn't that rather limit the extent of scalability (of such allocations)? Which, BTW, I think is not necessarily a bad thing. (As someone said here recently, the great thing about standards is that there are so many to chose from.) #g ------------ Graham Klyne GK@NineByNine.orgReceived on Wednesday, 26 September 2001 10:59:20 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:03 UTC