Re: Last Call: draft-cheshire-dnsext-multicastdns (Multicast DNS) to Informational RFC

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

 



On 19 Nov, 2009, at 06:14, Dave Cridland wrote:

Since people thought I was merely being amusing, instead of also intending to make a point, let me rephrase in a dry, dull, and serious tone, so I'm no longer told it was "very amusing, but not much help".

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.

Thank you. I think you are right.

Unfortunately, the specification of both of them suffers in, essentially, the same ways.

...

- A considerable amount of space is given over to Apple trademarks, which I confess to finding deeply irritating. mDNS is not nearly so bad as DNS-SD in this regard, but this still applies. I have no problem with acknowledging the input of Apple here, but there's a thin line between acknowledgement and outright product placement.

I would be happy to work with you in the next couple of weeks to de- cruft the document and get a cleaned up draft submitted before Christmas.

What you're seeing is the end result of a gradual accretion of text over the course of eight years since draft-00 in 2001. It was natural, especially in the early days, that many of the examples came from Apple products. Here and now, in 2009, if this is to be published as a Standards Track RFC, I don't have any problem with removing many or even all mentions of Apple and Apple products.

FWIW, I see no need to go through an extensive BOF process, and - again given the levels of deployment - I'd anticipate rapid progress through the standards-track ought to be possible.


I agree.

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

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

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