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?
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
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.
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.
Rob Austein wrote a lot of importand stuff and ...
"How about tossing a coin?"
ladys and gentleman ,
i count over 170 application that are under deployment or allready
successfully implemented
why can t we have a constructional discussion how things could be
progressed ?
<http://www.dns-sd.org/ServiceTypes.html>
pace Marc
--
"Pulvis et umbra sumus" - Staub und Schatten sind wir.
Les Enfants Terribles
www.let.de
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf