Re: Summary of the LLMNR Last Call

Margaret Wasserman <> Tue, 20 September 2005 08:57 UTC

Received: from localhost.localdomain ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EHdwo-0000K9-13; Tue, 20 Sep 2005 04:57:54 -0400
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EHdwm-0000ID-EJ for; Tue, 20 Sep 2005 04:57:52 -0400
Received: from (ietf-mx []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA16809 for <>; Tue, 20 Sep 2005 04:57:50 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EHe2Y-0006DE-RX for; Tue, 20 Sep 2005 05:03:52 -0400
Received: from [] (account margaret HELO []) by (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8) with ESMTP-TLS id 524578; Tue, 20 Sep 2005 04:59:20 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p06200754bf557bcdeaca@[]>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <p0620074fbf5509dd070a@[]> <>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 04:53:28 -0400
To: Bernard Aboba <>
From: Margaret Wasserman <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 82c9bddb247d9ba4471160a9a865a5f3
Subject: Re: Summary of the LLMNR Last Call
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>

Hi Bernard,

I'll start with the process portion of your message and answer the 
technical portion in my next note...

At 9:31 PM -0700 9/19/05, Bernard Aboba wrote:
>>  Please remember, though, that most of my note was not meant to 
>>express my own
>>  technical opinion, it was an attempt to summarize the issues that 
>>were raised
>>  by others in this discussion.
>The job of an IESG member is not to repeat mistatements, it is to use their

We apparently disagree about the job of an IESG member WRT IETF LC...

I believe that the purpose of an IETF LC is to determine if the IETF 
has consensus to publish a document.  I believe that my job, during 
IETF LC, is to judge whether that consensus exists -- which is 
usually demonstrated through lack of any objection.  In this case, 
there were significant objections to publishing this document, and I 
do not believe that IETF consensus currently exists to publish this 
document as a Proposed Standard RFC.

An IESG member's technical judgement is used at two phases:  AD 
Review and IESG Review.  This document was submitted for publication 
because the DNSEXT WG thought that it was ready for publication as a 
Proposed Standard RFC.  This document then passed AD Review and was 
sent to IETF LC because, in my judgement, it was ready for 
publication at PS.  The community disagreed.

>In this and other instances, the IESG appears to have lost sight
>of its mission.  The best interest of the Internet community lies not in
>blocking the publication of documents that fall outside today's orthodoxy,
>but rather in providing information to the Internet community.  In this case,
>that interest would be best served by publishing *all* documents
>relating to mDNS and LLMNR, especially the ones that the DNSEXT WG has found
>most objectionable (such as DNS-SD, and Bill Manning's DISCOVER OPCODE draft).

I absolutely disagree that the best interests of the community would 
be served by publishing all of these documents as Proposed Standard 
RFCs.  It might make sense to publish some or all of them (I haven't 
actually read all of them) as Informational RFCs, and that is one of 
the potential paths forward here.
Publication of a Proposed Standard RFC requires IETF LC and IETF 
community consensus.  Publication of an Informational RFC does not.

Another possible path for LLMNR is for the DNSEXT WG to understand 
the objections raised by the community, resolve those concerns (by 
changing the document, educating the community or other means) and 
present an updated document that will reach consensus in the 
community for publication as a Proposed Standard.


Ietf mailing list