[dnssd] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-dnssd-mdns-dns-interop-04: (with COMMENT)

Spencer Dawkins <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 24 May 2017 21:08 UTC

Return-Path: <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dnssd@ietf.org
Delivered-To: dnssd@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5210129BC4; Wed, 24 May 2017 14:08:07 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Spencer Dawkins <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-dnssd-mdns-dns-interop@ietf.org, Suzanne Woolf <suzworldwide@gmail.com>, dnssd-chairs@ietf.org, suzworldwide@gmail.com, dnssd@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.51.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <149566008786.8672.9137937348557057572.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 14:08:07 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnssd/LVJT4J56pBGq3Jt20Imt1OqBAJk>
Subject: [dnssd] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-dnssd-mdns-dns-interop-04: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dnssd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
List-Id: "Discussion of extensions to DNS-based service discovery for routed networks." <dnssd.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnssd>, <mailto:dnssd-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnssd/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnssd@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnssd-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnssd>, <mailto:dnssd-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 21:08:08 -0000

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnssd-mdns-dns-interop-04: Yes

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


I do have one comment, and it's only for consideration by the responsible

This document is great, and the shepherd thinks it's received sufficient
review for publication as Informational, but I wonder if it might 

- make sense to publish as a BCP, which would generate additional review
from other communities, OR

- make sense to publish as Experimental, which might signal that this
document is probably the right thing to, but the jury is still out, OR

- include "You are not expected to understand this" in the Introduction,
crediting Dennis Ritchie for prior art (*)

I'm MOSTLY kidding ...