Re: Last Call: draft-cheshire-dnsext-multicastdns (Multicast DNS) to Inf

+1 to Informational. Let's get this documentation out there in a stable
reference. That doesn't preclude publishing a standards-track version in
the future...

On 11/22/09 5:17 PM, Lawrence Conroy wrote:
> Hi Cullen, folks,
>  It seems to me ...
> There have been a number of cases where things are not developed within
> the IETF
> but are "out there".
> Whether or not folk LIKE those schemes/the companies that promulgate
> them/the author(s)
> /the document style/the weather is not really important.
> Having an Informational RFC to describe these protocols or file formats
> is useful.
> If nothing else, it tells you what the heck is going on down the wire.
> IF the IESG wants to tag on a comment that the described protocol/format
> is broken
> or conflicts with a more sensible IETF-anointed approach, it can and does.
>
> I support this as an Informational document. I would like this
> description out now.
> Burying it in a WG to try (and fail) to turn this into an IETF
> standards-track
> document is not helpful. I fear that someone will go postal if we do
> Zeroconf again.
> There has been Sooooo much history that it is simply not worth repeating
> the pain.
> (I seem to recall discussions on this starting out @IETF-41 in LA,
>  since which time it's in very wide use "out there" :).
>
> Please can we ship this as an Informational, and soon?
>
> all the best,
>   Lawrence
>
> On 18 Nov 2009, at 15:41, Cullen Jennings wrote:
> > Can someone walk me through the pro/cons of this being standards track
> > vs informational?
> >
> > Thanks, Cullen

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

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