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

[Bill Manning <bmanning at karoshi.com>]

there is a fairly extensive history of multicast DNS...
in 1998/1999, along w/ this draft:

Woodcock, B., Manning, B., "Multicast Domain Name Service",
	draft-manning-dnsext-mdns-02.txt,  August 2000.  Revied twice now 
Expired.

was this one:

Vixie, P., Manning, B., "Supporting unicast replies to multicast 
queries in the DNS",
	draft-manning-opcode-discover-01.txt,  First submitted as an ID July 
2000 - Active

With this abstract.

0. Abstract:

   The QUERY opcode in the DNS is designed for unicast. With the
   development of multicast capabilities in the DNS, it is desireable
   to have a more robust opcode for server interactions since a single
   request may result in replies from multiple responders. So DISCOVER
   is defined to deal with replies from multiple responders.

   As such, this document extend the core DNS specifications to allow
   clients to have a method for coping with replies from multiple
   responders. Use of this new opcode may facilitate DNS operations in
   modern networking topologies. A prototype of the DISCOVER opcode
   was developed as part of the TBDS project, funded under DARPA grant
   F30602-99-1-0523.

... so multicast DNS has been around, with various implementations over 
the years.
the Apple mDNS spec is not an IETF work product, in part because the 
IETF rejected
it.  Same w/ the DARPA mDNS work I did six years ago.  I believe that 
Bernard and
his team are where they are because they had the patience and money to 
wait out a
multi year IETF standardization effort.   I ran out of money, Apple 
wanted to ship solutions.
(i think)...   the Apple specs are available as are the mDNS specs.  
neither is proprietary.

that said, i think it is reasonable for the IETF to provide its 
imprinture on LLMNR as an IETF
standards track activitiy for naming on a link-local environment.  The 
work has not violated the
processes, has met all the IETF criteria and should proceed. Pretty 
much a clear case of a protocol
designed by committee.  And its not like anyone will use it of course.
Even Microsoft appears to have abandon it.

--bill


On Aug 25, 2005, at 18:53, Stuart Cheshire wrote:

> > It is not typical for us to make statements in our standards
> > regarding what proprietary mechanisms our standards are or are not
> > intended to compete with, nor do we typically include statements that
> > compare the features of our standards to proprietary protocols.
>
> Please stop calling it "proprietary". The mDNS specificiation is 
> publicly
> available, and is the result of many years of open public discussion.
> There are multiple independent open source implementations. Just 
> because
> a certain IETF inner circle decided to turn their backs on it doesn't
> make it proprietary.
>
> Stuart Cheshire <cheshire at apple.com>
>  * Wizard Without Portfolio, Apple Computer, Inc.
>  * www.stuartcheshire.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf at ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


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