Subject: RE: LLMNR consensus statement

From: "Durand, Alain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 22:48:48 -0500

> -----Original Message-----
> That means that only Sullivan, Borzmeyer, Thaler, and Hall 
> indicated that they had read the document in detail which 
> does hardly meet the set quorum (Aboba clearly read the said 
> doc, but think we do not include him in the count).

I would really hate to see this work come to an end because
not enough people read the final draft. This would be a shame
On the wg and the IETF as a whole.

Question to the chairs:
If one more person was to speak up, would it help saving the draft?
If the answer is yes, I will commit myself to re-read the document
(I read a version of it not long ago) and pledge support.

   - Alain.

--
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: Stuart Cheshire <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 15:02:44 -0800

>Is there somewhere IETF guidance about this issue? Basically, you
>suggest that Apple's protocol should be approved by IETF, just because
>of prior deployment, which may encourage other people to deploy first
>(and think later), in the hope of using the same argument.

I think you misunderstood me.

I was not asking or expecting the IETF to "rubber stamp" anything.

My point was that if there are people who sincerely believe that
our mDNS protocol is doing harm on the network, then working
together to remedy those deficiencies is the path most likely to
achieve the desired result. Issuing a competing RFC in the hope
that it would displace the established protocol "in the wild"
really had about as much chance of succeeding as government-
endorsed OSI had of displacing TCP/IP in the 1990s. Too many
products today already depend on mDNS. If you have a network
printer on your network then you probably already have mDNS on your
network, whether you know it or not -- you can check for yourself by
downloading Bonjour for Windows from <http://www.apple.com/bonjour/>

Stuart Cheshire <[email-masked]>
 * Wizard Without Portfolio, Apple Computer, Inc.
 * www.stuartcheshire.org

---

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 00:32:50 -0800 (PST)

Stuart Cheshire said:

"I have great respect for Bernard. We worked well together on RFC 3927, 
and I was never happy that in this instance we found ourselves on opposite
sides of a debate concerning two documents that were very much like two
twins separated at birth."

My view is that Stuart and I are actually on the same side -- had the IETF
not intervened I have little doubt that there would be a single multicast
link-local name resolution protocol today, interoperating on all
platforms.  We worked together on RFC 3927, we just recently worked
together on DNAv4, and I look forward to working with Stuart again in the
future.

"This gives us the chance to improve and enhance the protocol currently
being used on tens of millions of deployed devices, rather than architecting a
competing document which may well have gone nowhere."

Given the past history, I have my doubts as to whether the IETF has
anything to contribute here, even in terms of "improving" or
"enhancing" mDNS.  More likely is that the IETF will not standardize
any specifications; it is even possible that no documents will be published
as RFCs.  That's not a very satisfactory end to a process that began seven
years ago at the  Networking in the Small (NITS) BOF at IETF 44 in
Minneapolis in March 1999.