On Nov 19, 2009, at 06:14 , Dave Cridland wrote:
There exist a few protocols based around mDNS and DNS-SD, in particular in
combination, and the general high-level design of both protocols is
essentially sound. These are sometimes standards-track specifications of the
IETF - I seem to recall some of the SIP related protocols are DNS-SD/mDNS
based. In other SDOs, there are also standards track specifications based
around the combination, such as the XSF's XEP-0174 -
http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0174.html - and these are also reliant on
a stable, well-specified, protocol. To my mind, this implies that both
specifications need to be standards track, if that status has any meaning at
all - and I firmly believe it should and does.
Chiming in to add another ongoing standards effort that would like to reference
this document by its RFC number: the TC32-TG21 - Proxying Support for Sleep
Modes program at ECMA International, which is now circulating a draft for TC
postal vote. See <http://www.ecma-international.org/memento/TC32-TG21-M.htm>
for more information about this effort.
One reason to prefer a standards track document here would be to preempt
procedural objections in ISO/IEC about references to informational category
IETF documents, which have been known to arise from time to time in that body.
There is some concern in TC32-TG21 about such objections to ancillary citations
of RFC 4795, which is *also* an informational category document. It's possible
ISO/IEC won't object to the informational status of either document, but we
have a chance to preempt those objections now by publishing mDNS as
standards-track.
That said, having an RFC number for an informational mDNS document-- in a small
number of weeks-- would be orders of magnitude more preferable than not having
it, and having to wait an indefinite period of time for a standards track RFC
to be published, if that's what IETF decides to do.
To make the obvious explicit, I support publishing this document as an RFC
without any further delay.
If it could be published as standards-track, instead of informational,
*without* *any* *further* *delay*, that would be excellent. However, I believe
there is nothing to be gained for the Internet community by any further delay
in publishing this important document.
It should have been published years go, fergawdzakes. Faster, please.
--
james woodyatt <jhw(_at_)apple(_dot_)com>
member of technical staff, communications engineering
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf