Re: Fwd: Summary of the LLMNR Last Call

[Paul Vixie <[e-mail]>]

# It seems to me that concerns 1 and 3 could be erased by removing LLMNR from
# standards track and publishing it as informational or even experimental.

that's what happened to the SRV RR, and it hasn't hurt apple's or microsoft's
business at all to have the dreaded "experimental" tag on that RFC.

# I'm curious if the WG wants to take this back.  It's (I mean the problem,
# not the proposed solution) lingered so long, is there energy to solve the
# concerns raise in the last call?  Is there any, *any*, chance we can merge
# LLMNR and mDNS?  If not, I really don't think it'll be worth an
# interoperable standardization effort.

while i agree with this in general, i have three specific concerns.

1. the right way to do multicast DNS is draft-manning-opcode-discover-01,
   and while apple and microsoft both call their approaches "multicast dns"
   they are really "overloading dns to carry service discovery in multicast".

2. any attempt to merge mdns and llmnr MUST be backward compatible with mdns,
   since apple has created an important new economy of mdns services/devices
   and ietf should only ignore this economy if mdns is the provably wrong
   approach, rather than merely suboptimal in some way (that i'm unaware of).

3. if this is really about PnP, i sure wish that everybody would just say so
   and re-frame the debate in PnP terms and stop treating it as a dns issue
   that's somehow relevant to the skills of the core namedroppers community.

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [e-mail] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>