On Nov 19, 2009, at 06:14 , Dave Cridland wrote:
There exist a few protocols based around mDNS and DNS-SD, in particular in
combination, and the general high-level design of both protocols is
essentially sound. These are sometimes standards-track specifications of the
IETF - I seem to recall some of the SIP related protocols are DNS-SD/mDNS
based. In other SDOs, there are also standards track specifications based
around the combination, such as the XSF's XEP-0174 -
http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0174.html - and these are also reliant on
a stable, well-specified, protocol. To my mind, this implies that both
specifications need to be standards track, if that status has any meaning at
all - and I firmly believe it should and does.
Chiming in to add another ongoing standards effort that would like to reference
this document by its RFC number: the TC32-TG21 - Proxying Support for Sleep
Modes program at ECMA International, which is now circulating a draft for TC
postal vote. See <http://www.ecma-international.org/memento/TC32-TG21-M.htm>
for more information about this effort.
One reason to prefer a standards track document here would be to preempt
procedural objections in ISO/IEC about references to informational category
IETF documents, which have been known to arise from time to time in that body.
There is some concern in TC32-TG21 about such objections to ancillary citations
of RFC 4795, which is *also* an informational category document. It's possible
ISO/IEC won't object to the informational status of either document, but we
have a chance to preempt those objections now by publishing mDNS as
That said, having an RFC number for an informational mDNS document-- in a small
number of weeks-- would be orders of magnitude more preferable than not having
it, and having to wait an indefinite period of time for a standards track RFC
to be published, if that's what IETF decides to do.
To make the obvious explicit, I support publishing this document as an RFC
without any further delay.
If it could be published as standards-track, instead of informational,
*without* *any* *further* *delay*, that would be excellent. However, I believe
there is nothing to be gained for the Internet community by any further delay
in publishing this important document.
It should have been published years go, fergawdzakes. Faster, please.
james woodyatt <jhw(_at_)apple(_dot_)com>
member of technical staff, communications engineering
Ietf mailing list