Subject: RE: [Simple] Message Sessions: Offer/Answer

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 17:36:50 +0300

[snip]

 > I think this is the correct direction to take overall. As 
 > far as a host
 > part for the URI encoding, I have already become convinced we need it
 > for other reasons. (For example, the split dns example you made off
 > list.)

I'm sorry, but can you elaborate on the example a bit? We're not all sitting next to you guys in the office. ;-)

Cheers,
Aki
_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: 11 Apr 2003 10:06:33 -0500

Actually, as I think this through a little more, it occurs to me that
the example does not really host,as only the i-am URI is used for
address resolution by the visitor. The host uses a pre-configured
address when it connects for BIND. But at the same time, I do not see
that it is worth forcing a relay to always use the same domain for both
URIs just for a slight notational convenience.