 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hopefully convalesce Marshall Eubanks wrote following important lines
why should a protocol that no-one will use be standards track ?
This discussion is beginning to remind me of the scientific standards processes involving the Soviet
bloc that I was involved with during the Cold War. That is not a good sign...
and a very disrespectful person named Keith Moore wrote:
Why should we accept a few (mostly axe-grinding) peoples' assertions that no-one will use it?
I think the fact that mDNS has been successful in the market place should be given a lot of consideration. At this point, something new has to be a A LOT better to be worth the extra implementation effort, and, more importantly: all the operational issues it will cause (if there is any uptake) for years to come.
I'm afraid we're looking at a new ip6.int / ip6.arpa debacle. This stuff wastes SO MUCH time and effort that it's almost criminal to make these changes if there is no clear technical advantage.
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.
Rob Austein wrote a lot of importand stuff and ...
"How about tossing a coin?"
ladys and gentleman ,
<http://www.dns-sd.org/ServiceTypes.html>
pace Marc
Les Enfants Terribles www.let.de
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.