On 8/30/2005 2:18 PM, Stuart Cheshire wrote: > Well, in case 1 (mDNS), no, because it won't return a useful result, so > why keep doing it? > > In case 3 (conventional DNS), no, because it won't return a useful > result, so why keep doing it? > > In case 2 (LLMNR) the answer is yes, all the time, if you chose to call > your printer "isoc.frog", which LLMNR allows and encourages. What part of the specification requires LLMNR names to be processed through Internet DNS? There are lots of similar-looking naming services out there (DNS, NIS, NetBIOS, AppleTalk, ...), and there is a significant amount of experience in keeping the names and resolution paths separate. Just because an LLMNR name "looks like" a DNS name doesn't make it one (just as an AppleTalk name that "looks like" a DNS name doesn't make it one). People who mix the resolution paths (and/or the caches) deserve what they get. Unless you can point out where this is mandatory, I'd say the correct response is "don't do that" -- Eric A. Hall http://www.ehsco.com/ Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/ _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf