Stuart Cheshire <cheshire(_at_)apple(_dot_)com> writes:
What happened here was *not* that the DNSEXT working group disagreed
with me on the technical details of my solution. What happened was that
the DNSEXT working group disagreed with me on the problem statement. I
said, "Here's a proposed way to do simple effective service discovery
using existing DNS record types." The DNSEXT working group said, "The
DNS protocol is not to be used for service discovery. We forbid it, and
furthermore, to prove the point, we're going to design a protocol of our
own that superficially looks like yours but can't be used for service
discovery."
And, of course, this is now a particularly non-sensical position given
that DNS is being widely used for service discovery (RFC 2782, which is
standards track, not to mention AFSDB records which have been part of DNS
since RFC 1183 and are in widespread use in the AFS community despite the
experimental status).
--
Russ Allbery (rra(_at_)stanford(_dot_)edu)
<http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf