On Nov 19, 2009, at 06:14 , Dave Cridland wrote: > > There exist a few protocols based around mDNS and DNS-SD, in particular in combination, and the general high-level design of both protocols is essentially sound. These are sometimes standards-track specifications of the IETF - I seem to recall some of the SIP related protocols are DNS-SD/mDNS based. In other SDOs, there are also standards track specifications based around the combination, such as the XSF's XEP-0174 - http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0174.html - and these are also reliant on a stable, well-specified, protocol. To my mind, this implies that both specifications need to be standards track, if that status has any meaning at all - and I firmly believe it should and does. Chiming in to add another ongoing standards effort that would like to reference this document by its RFC number: the TC32-TG21 - Proxying Support for Sleep Modes program at ECMA International, which is now circulating a draft for TC postal vote. See <http://www.ecma-international.org/memento/TC32-TG21-M.htm> for more information about this effort. One reason to prefer a standards track document here would be to preempt procedural objections in ISO/IEC about references to informational category IETF documents, which have been known to arise from time to time in that body. There is some concern in TC32-TG21 about such objections to ancillary citations of RFC 4795, which is *also* an informational category document. It's possible ISO/IEC won't object to the informational status of either document, but we have a chance to preempt those objections now by publishing mDNS as standards-track. That said, having an RFC number for an informational mDNS document-- in a small number of weeks-- would be orders of magnitude more preferable than not having it, and having to wait an indefinite period of time for a standards track RFC to be published, if that's what IETF decides to do. To make the obvious explicit, I support publishing this document as an RFC without any further delay. If it could be published as standards-track, instead of informational, *without* *any* *further* *delay*, that would be excellent. However, I believe there is nothing to be gained for the Internet community by any further delay in publishing this important document. It should have been published years go, fergawdzakes. Faster, please. -- james woodyatt <jhw@xxxxxxxxx> member of technical staff, communications engineering _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf