Subject: Re: LLMNR is done

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: 27 Jan 2004 01:33:33 +0000

Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]> writes:

> ...
> To sum up the situation, on October 6, 2003, Olafur posted the following
> reply:
> http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2003/msg01872.html

can llmnr and rendezvous be issued in tandem, with applicability statements?
-- 
Paul Vixie

--
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: John Schnizlein <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 14:02:44 -0500

Where is Rendezvous under consideration in the IETF?
I would be glad to see an informational RFC specifying Rendezvous.
I never saw it named explicitly in the Zero-Conf charter.

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 19:34:38 +0000

> Where is Rendezvous under consideration in the IETF?

http://www.zeroconf.org/Rendezvous/
http://files.dns-sd.org/draft-cheshire-dnsext-dns-sd.txt

> I would be glad to see an informational RFC specifying Rendezvous.

i think that would be a cop-out.  if dns-sd ("apple's rendezvous") and
llmnr have the same target audience, then the existence of both protocols
is an indication of chaos or irresponsibility (depending on how far it
goes before it's stopped).  if they have different target audiences, then
both should be advanced, on the standards track, with clear applicability
statements to tell implementors which one they need, or why they need both.

---

From: Brad Hards <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 18:58:15 +1100

> i think that would be a cop-out.  if dns-sd ("apple's rendezvous") and
The bit of Rendezvous you want is MDNS. DNS-SD is a peer to protocols like SLP 
(which could do name<->address conversion, but isn't really intended for 
that.

> statements to tell implementors which one they need, or why they need both.
These look pretty similar to me:

Abstract
Today, with the rise of home networking, there are an increasing number
of ad-hoc networks operating without a Domain Name System (DNS) server.
In order to allow name resolution in such environments, Link-Local
Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR) is proposed.  LLMNR supports all
current and future DNS formats, types and classes, while operating on a
separate port from DNS, and with a distinct resolver cache.
The goal of LLMNR is to enable name resolution in scenarios in which
conventional DNS name resolution is not possible.  Since LLMNR only
operates on the local link, it cannot be considered a substitute for
DNS.

Abstract
   As networked devices become smaller, more portable, and more
   ubiquitous, the ability to operate with less configured
   infrastructure is increasingly important. In particular, the ability
   to look up host names and similar DNS resource record data types, in
   the absence of a conventional managed DNS server, is becoming
   essential.

I don't think those could be considered to be addresses distinct audiences. 
Where is the difference?

Brad