On Aug 26, 2005, at 10:36, 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. Implementors are going to have to choose which
protocols
to use, and right now they're being given very little useful guidance
and
justification by the DNS working group as near as I can tell.
--
Russ Allbery (rra(_at_)stanford(_dot_)edu)
<http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
to be fair, the mdns work was work looking for a home in the
IETF. DNSEXT at the time had a couple dozen work items at
the time and was not prepared to take on something this radical.
There were a couple of BOFs to see if we could spin up a new WG
for this .... which in my feeble memory turned into zeroconf WG.
then there was the debate over if this was DNS or something else...
Stewart & I took the stance, yes it was/is. Bernard/LLMNR bowed
to the pressure to not call it DNS - (hence the goofy name) ....
My grant over and Stewart ready to ship, we kind of let this IETF
thing slide....
only after all this did the LLMNR work get "grafted back" into the
DNSEXT wg... even tho it was not really DNS by then.
So i don't think it is fair to dump on the DNSEXT wg members. This
stuff was pretty much gell'ed before it got to them.
--bill
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf