>I do not understand how defining a new, different service on a new >port will kill anything. Are you saying that you *REALLY* do not understand how the IETF defining a new protocol, and stating publicly that it's intended to compete with some established protocol, gives all the appearance of an attempt to kill off that existing protocol? An attempt to split implementers into two non-interoperating camps? An attempt to cause customers and other implementers to put off making a decision on either protocol while they wait to see which camp wins? Of course LLMNR won't actually kill off mDNS, but there's a real risk of it causing confusion and delay. And, in the process, the failed effort to kill off mDNS squanders the IETF's credibility. Before you claim that LLMNR was not intended to compete with mDNS, this is from Bernard Aboba's LLMNR FAQ: <http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/DNSEXT/llmnrfaq.html> > Rendezvous [Bonjour] is an individual submission that is not a work > item of any IETF working group, and is currently not an IETF standard. > While it is possible for an individual submission to become an > IETF standard, this is unlikely in this case because an existing > WG (DNSEXT) is already working on a competing protocol (LLMNR) Before you claim that it's not causing confusion in the broader community, this is from the Wikipedia entry for "Zeroconf": <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeroconf> > Name resolution > There are two very similar ways of figuring out which > networked item has a certain name. Apple Computer's Multicast > DNS (mDNS) is in use, but is not an IETF standard. Microsoft's > Link-local Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR) is not yet being > used, but is being officially standardized by the IETF. There's a clear message being promulgated that the two protocols are more-or-less equivalent in functionality, the only significant difference being that one has the endorsement of the IETF and the other doesn't. It would go a long way to ease my concerns if the LLMNR specification stated clearly in its introduction that it's NOT intended to compete with mDNS, because LLMNR doesn't have any of the functionality that mDNS provides to enable network browsing and service discovery. Stuart Cheshire <cheshire@xxxxxxxxx> * Wizard Without Portfolio, Apple Computer, Inc. * www.stuartcheshire.org _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf