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

[Russ Allbery <rra at stanford.edu>]

bmanning <bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com> writes:

> 	we shouldn't.  LLMNR has waded through the lengthy IETF
> 	standardization process to get to where it is.  That Microsoft has
> 	been patient and spent the money needed to keep people on this
> 	task long enough to get it here should be rewarded with the IETF
> 	imprinture.

I completely disagree with this.  The purpose of the IETF approval process
is to ensure that the result is a good standard, not to reward people for
being patient.  People can and have been very patient about *bad ideas*;
they still shouldn't be published.

If LLMNR is a good protocol with solid reasons for not going with the
existing de facto standard, then by all means it should be published.
However, it absolutely should not be published simply because Microsoft
(or any other company or organization) has been patient and spent money.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra at stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

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