Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

Hi Peter,

At 12:41 PM +0200 8/25/05, Peter Dambier wrote:
>Stuart Cheshire wrote:
>>>The IESG has received a request from the DNS Extensions WG to 
>>>consider the following document:
>>>
>>>- 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR) '
>>>   <draft-ietf-dnsext-mdns-42.txt> as a Proposed Standard
>>>
>>>The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
>>>final comments on this action.  Please send any comments to the
>>>iesg@ietf.org or ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2005-08-24.
>
>I really would appreciate do think IESG should postpone or reject.
>
>This protocoll is untested!
>
>Its implementation could result in a loss of lives!
>
>There is no reference implementation.

The IETF does not define reference implementations.  This document 
has been submitted for Proposed Standard (PS) publication, and there 
are no specific implementation requirements for publication at the PS 
level, which is the first level of the IETF standards track.  Two 
interoperable implementations are required for advancement to Draft 
Standard.

However, I have been told (although I cannot personally verify this) 
that the LLMNR protocol has been implemented in Microsoft WinCE 5.0, 
and that statement is supported by the release notes that can be 
found at:

http://download.microsoft.com/download/0/8/0/08000f6b-974b-4384-90d0-26440d9ecbcf/relnotes.rtf

>>>Apple's mDNS protocol differs from LLMNR (and DNS) in more than
>>>half a dozen ways.
>
>1. It is emplemented.
>
>2. Mostly everybody does use it.
>
>3. mDNS did not result in the loss of lives.
>
>>>Apple mDNS and LLMNR use different ports, as well as different
>>>multicast addresses, and because of the many protocol
>>>differences, do not interoperate.

The DNSEXT WG understands that LLMNR is not identical to the Apple 
mDNS protocol and that it will not interoperate with it.  In fact, 
the reason that LLMNR runs on a different port is that it is known to 
be different.

>Forget about bats and bees now. Think of existing programmes and appliances.
>Do you want to kill them?

I do not understand how defining a new, different service on a new 
port will kill anything.  There is nothing about the existence LLMNR 
that would prevent hosts from running Apple's proprietary mDNS 
protocol on the existing Apple mDNS port.

I don't think that you have raised any issues here that have not 
already been discussed in the DNSEXT WG.  If you do have specific 
technical objections to the LLMNR protocol, could you re-state them a 
bit more clearly so that I can understand what they are?

Thank you,
Margaret

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf