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

On 11/23/09 6:49 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
> On Mon Nov 23 00:17:45 2009, Lawrence Conroy wrote:
>
> > 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.
> Right, this much I agree with. And if this was an isolated protocol, I
> would not be concerned with it at all - it is, as you imply, what
> Informational is *for* - well, modulo the marketing, anyway.
>
> But there are, as I say, a number of standards-track protocols both in
> the IETF and other SDOs which depend on these two documents, just as was
> the case a year ago:
>
> http://www.ietf.org/ibin/c5i?mid=6&rid=49&gid=0&k1=933&k2=44223&tid=1244548867
>
> As it happens, the IETF documents haven't advanced - and I wonder if
> that's in part because mDNS and DNS-SD haven't been made standards-track.
>
> I'm not arguing against the protocol's existence, and not against its
> documentation. I'm arguing that we should take the time to document it
> clearly, and ensure that it can be easily implemented in an
> interoperable manner from that documentation, and - potentially - make a
> handful of compatible changes where appropriate.
>
> > 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" :).
> So you're primary argument against this not being made a standards track
> document is that it's an awful lot of work, and that it's bound to fail
> anyway.
>
> Well, I can't deny that it *is* a substantial amount of work, but given
> that this protocol is, as you point out, deployed in the wild, I'm not
> really sure this is a problem, and arguing the IETF shouldn't put
> documents on the standards track, with a working group, because it's a
> lot of work and might fail to produce a useful result does - to me,
> anyway - sound my irony alarm full blast. Isn't this what the IETF is
> *for*?
>
> So I reiterate - I see no reason not to charter a working group to
> revise this specification (and dns-sd), and I would welcome such a group
> being chartered such that it cannot make any incompatible changes to the
> protocol.
There are two separate actions that could be taken here:

a. Publish draft-cheshire-dnsext-multicastdns as an Informational RFC
(call it "mDNS 1.0" if that makes people happy).

b. Charter a WG to complete work on a standards-track protocol for the
same or similar functionality (call it "mDNS 1.1").

Are you in favor of a-and-b, or b-only?

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

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