Re: Last Call: draft-cheshire-dnsext-multicastdns (Multicast DNS) to Informational RFC

[Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net>]

On Wed Nov 18 15:41:18 2009, Cullen Jennings wrote:
> Can someone walk me through the pro/cons of this being standards  
> track  vs informational?

Cons:

For one thing, it's a lot of work to make a specification like this  
up to the quality of the standards-track.

Some of the 20 or so mentions of Apple™ and its trademarks may be  
removed during the standardization work. It's much harder to get away  
with using apple.com™ for most of the example domains, for instance.

The standards track doesn't mean anything anymore. It's so last  
decade. mDNS™ only really needs an RFC number, and a couple of  
trendy (preferably French™-sounding) product names carefully placed  
in the document.

What if changes are demanded by those annoying DNS experts? That  
might break backwards compatibility with the existing deployment,  
starting from Apple™ Jaguar™ OS X™ 10™, in case I've not  
mentioned that in a few paragraphs.

Pros:

Only really annoying old stick-in-the-muds would think of anything  
positive to come out of making a consensus-driven, interoperable  
standards-track specification, which'd be almost completely out of  
the control of a single entity.

Dave.
--
Dave Cridland - mailto:dave at cridland.net - xmpp:dwd at dave.cridland.net
 - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
 - http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade