On 26-aug-2005, at 0:29, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
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.
Would it be too much to ask that someone who knows explain this?
At this point, it seems too late to revisit this decision which was made several years ago.
I disagree. If you can't do the right thing on time, at least do the right thing late. Doing the wrong thing late doesn't help anyone.
I think the fact that mDNS has been successful in the market place should be given a lot of consideration. At this point, something new has to be a A LOT better to be worth the extra implementation effort, and, more importantly: all the operational issues it will cause (if there is any uptake) for years to come.
I'm afraid we're looking at a new ip6.int / ip6.arpa debacle. This stuff wastes SO MUCH time and effort that it's almost criminal to make these changes if there is no clear technical advantage.
The posts from others lead me to believe that LLMNR is actually inferior to mDNS, and the fact that the draft is version 42 also speaks volumes.
At the very least the IESG should move this protocol off the standards track and let it stew in "experimental" for a while.
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf