Subject: Re: DNSEXT WGLC Summary: LLMNR

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 21:15:24 +0000

i have no comments for or against the quality of either the document or
the protocol for either mDNS or LLMNR.  however, i will echo one of
joshua's concerns, which is that the document that will be advanced
seems to be a compromise which will please nobody.  i very much wish
that there had been a design team, and community buy-in at the vision
level, rather than the fragmented market that will apparently now exist.

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

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 04:53:29 +0000

> LLMNR does not appear to solve any problems important to me or the vendor I
> work for. Maybe this working group will have luck finding someone that is
> interested in LLMNR.

i think that the llmnr document, or another to be advanced at the same time,
should give implementation guidance to vendors who also implement dns and
mdns.