Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



there is a fairly extensive history of multicast DNS...
in 1998/1999, along w/ this draft:

Woodcock, B., Manning, B., "Multicast Domain Name Service",
draft-manning-dnsext-mdns-02.txt, August 2000. Revied twice now Expired.

was this one:

Vixie, P., Manning, B., "Supporting unicast replies to multicast queries in the DNS", draft-manning-opcode-discover-01.txt, First submitted as an ID July 2000 - Active

With this abstract.

0. Abstract:

   The QUERY opcode in the DNS is designed for unicast. With the
   development of multicast capabilities in the DNS, it is desireable
   to have a more robust opcode for server interactions since a single
   request may result in replies from multiple responders. So DISCOVER
   is defined to deal with replies from multiple responders.

   As such, this document extend the core DNS specifications to allow
   clients to have a method for coping with replies from multiple
   responders. Use of this new opcode may facilitate DNS operations in
   modern networking topologies. A prototype of the DISCOVER opcode
   was developed as part of the TBDS project, funded under DARPA grant
   F30602-99-1-0523.

... so multicast DNS has been around, with various implementations over the years. the Apple mDNS spec is not an IETF work product, in part because the IETF rejected it. Same w/ the DARPA mDNS work I did six years ago. I believe that Bernard and his team are where they are because they had the patience and money to wait out a multi year IETF standardization effort. I ran out of money, Apple wanted to ship solutions. (i think)... the Apple specs are available as are the mDNS specs. neither is proprietary.

that said, i think it is reasonable for the IETF to provide its imprinture on LLMNR as an IETF standards track activitiy for naming on a link-local environment. The work has not violated the processes, has met all the IETF criteria and should proceed. Pretty much a clear case of a protocol
designed by committee.  And its not like anyone will use it of course.
Even Microsoft appears to have abandon it.

--bill


On Aug 25, 2005, at 18:53, Stuart Cheshire wrote:

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.

Please stop calling it "proprietary". The mDNS specificiation is publicly
available, and is the result of many years of open public discussion.
There are multiple independent open source implementations. Just because
a certain IETF inner circle decided to turn their backs on it doesn't
make it proprietary.

Stuart Cheshire <cheshire@xxxxxxxxx>
 * Wizard Without Portfolio, Apple Computer, Inc.
 * www.stuartcheshire.org


_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]