ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

2005-08-31 08:52:40

On 8/30/2005 2:18 PM, Stuart Cheshire wrote:

Well, in case 1 (mDNS), no, because it won't return a useful result, so 
why keep doing it?

In case 3 (conventional DNS), no, because it won't return a useful 
result, so why keep doing it?

In case 2 (LLMNR) the answer is yes, all the time, if you chose to call 
your printer "isoc.frog", which LLMNR allows and encourages.

What part of the specification requires LLMNR names to be processed
through Internet DNS?

There are lots of similar-looking naming services out there (DNS, NIS,
NetBIOS, AppleTalk, ...), and there is a significant amount of experience
in keeping the names and resolution paths separate. Just because an LLMNR
name "looks like" a DNS name doesn't make it one (just as an AppleTalk
name that "looks like" a DNS name doesn't make it one).

People who mix the resolution paths (and/or the caches) deserve what they
get. Unless you can point out where this is mandatory, I'd say the correct
response is "don't do that"

-- 
Eric A. Hall                                        http://www.ehsco.com/
Internet Core Protocols          http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>