On 26-aug-2005, at 0:29, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
I wasn't involved at the time, but I understand that the WG did not
choose to purse the Apple mDNS proposal and intentionally selected
the LLMNR proposal, with the understanding that the standard they
produced would not be compatible with the existing Apple mDNS
technology. I wish that I had enough insight into the decision-
making process to know why that was decided, but I do not.
Would it be too much to ask that someone who knows explain this?
At this point, it seems too late to revisit this decision which was
made several years ago.
I disagree. If you can't do the right thing on time, at least do the
right thing late. Doing the wrong thing late doesn't help anyone.
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.
The posts from others lead me to believe that LLMNR is actually
inferior to mDNS, and the fact that the draft is version 42 also
speaks volumes.
At the very least the IESG should move this protocol off the
standards track and let it stew in "experimental" for a while.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf