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

[Bill Manning <bmanning at karoshi.com>]

On Aug 26, 2005, at 10:36, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Presumably the DNS working group has some incredibly strong arguments 
> that
> trump running code or they wouldn't have made the choices that they 
> have.
> Let's see them, and furthermore, let's see them *in the document* or at
> least in a supporting informational document, since those of us on the
> IETF mailing list are certainly not the only people who are going to 
> have
> that question.  Implementors are going to have to choose which 
> protocols
> to use, and right now they're being given very little useful guidance 
> and
> justification by the DNS working group as near as I can tell.
>
> --
> Russ Allbery (rra at stanford.edu)             
> <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

	to be fair, the mdns work was work looking for a home in the
	IETF.  DNSEXT at the time had a couple dozen work items at
	the time and was not prepared to take on something this radical.
	There were a couple of BOFs to see if we could spin up a new WG
	for this .... which in my feeble memory turned into zeroconf WG.

	then there was the debate over if this was DNS or something else...
	Stewart & I took the stance, yes it was/is.  Bernard/LLMNR bowed
	to the pressure to not call it DNS - (hence the goofy name) ....
	My grant over and Stewart ready to ship, we kind of let this IETF
	thing slide....

	only after all this did the LLMNR work get "grafted back" into the
	DNSEXT wg...  even tho it was not really DNS by then.

	So i don't think it is fair to dump on the DNSEXT wg members.  This
	stuff was pretty much gell'ed before it got to them.

--bill


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