Hi Stuart, --On 25. august 2005 10:18 -0700 Stuart Cheshire <cheshire@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.
It is not typical for us to make statements in our standards regarding what proprietary mechanisms our standards are or are not intended to compete with, nor do we typically include statements that compare the features of our standards to proprietary protocols.
We do sometimes include statements about the applicability of our standards to specific environments, but I don't think that is quite what you are suggesting here.
I understand that you and some others would have preferred it if we had standardized the Apple protocol. I wasn't involved at the time, but I understand that the WG did not choose to purse the Apple mDNS proposal and intentionally selected the LLMNR proposal, with the understanding that the standard they produced would not be compatible with the existing Apple mDNS technology. I wish that I had enough insight into the decision-making process to know why that was decided, but I do not. At this point, it seems too late to revisit this decision which was made several years ago.
Margaret _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf