Subject: Re: Comments on draft-ietf-zeroconf-reqts-02

From: Stuart Cheshire <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 22:56:02 -0800

>For example an internet alarm clock or toaster that will never be taken to
>the office must still include DHCP client?

I think we should specify that ZC hosts SHOULD be able to operate in large
configured networks (e.g. using DHCP) as well as in standalone isolated
networks. There may be some devices, like X10-style networked light
switches, which may never need to be globally accessible, but I think the
argument for putting IP on these devices is not very strong. To my mind, the
benefit of ZC is that it allows the same devices (and application-layer
protocols) to operate in both large and small networks. If we create devices
that don't work in large networks then we don't get that benefit.

Stuart Cheshire <[email-masked]>

---

From: Richard Johnson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 20:44:44 -0800 (PST)

> Stuart Cheshire <[email-masked]>

I think my recent messages are saying exactly this same thing, so I
guess I'm just agreeing with Stuart.

/raj