On 11/23/09 6:49 AM, Dave Cridland wrote: > On Mon Nov 23 00:17:45 2009, Lawrence Conroy wrote: > >> Having an Informational RFC to describe these protocols or file >> formats is useful. >> If nothing else, it tells you what the heck is going on down the wire. > > Right, this much I agree with. And if this was an isolated protocol, I > would not be concerned with it at all - it is, as you imply, what > Informational is *for* - well, modulo the marketing, anyway. > > But there are, as I say, a number of standards-track protocols both in > the IETF and other SDOs which depend on these two documents, just as was > the case a year ago: > > http://www.ietf.org/ibin/c5i?mid=6&rid=49&gid=0&k1=933&k2=44223&tid=1244548867 > > As it happens, the IETF documents haven't advanced - and I wonder if > that's in part because mDNS and DNS-SD haven't been made standards-track. > > I'm not arguing against the protocol's existence, and not against its > documentation. I'm arguing that we should take the time to document it > clearly, and ensure that it can be easily implemented in an > interoperable manner from that documentation, and - potentially - make a > handful of compatible changes where appropriate. > >> Burying it in a WG to try (and fail) to turn this into an IETF >> standards-track >> document is not helpful. I fear that someone will go postal if we do >> Zeroconf again. >> There has been Sooooo much history that it is simply not worth >> repeating the pain. >> (I seem to recall discussions on this starting out @IETF-41 in LA, >> since which time it's in very wide use "out there" :). > > So you're primary argument against this not being made a standards track > document is that it's an awful lot of work, and that it's bound to fail > anyway. > > Well, I can't deny that it *is* a substantial amount of work, but given > that this protocol is, as you point out, deployed in the wild, I'm not > really sure this is a problem, and arguing the IETF shouldn't put > documents on the standards track, with a working group, because it's a > lot of work and might fail to produce a useful result does - to me, > anyway - sound my irony alarm full blast. Isn't this what the IETF is > *for*? > > So I reiterate - I see no reason not to charter a working group to > revise this specification (and dns-sd), and I would welcome such a group > being chartered such that it cannot make any incompatible changes to the > protocol. There are two separate actions that could be taken here: a. Publish draft-cheshire-dnsext-multicastdns as an Informational RFC (call it "mDNS 1.0" if that makes people happy). b. Charter a WG to complete work on a standards-track protocol for the same or similar functionality (call it "mDNS 1.1"). Are you in favor of a-and-b, or b-only? Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
<<attachment: smime.p7s>>
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf