The biggest problem I have with this document is among those pointed out by Wouter: > * The rule that .local names MUST be sent to mdns(port 5353). I feel > this is a little too strong, there are sites out there that have set ups > with .local in their unicast DNS. Propose: SHOULD. As stated above, it's already a somewhat common practice to use .local in *private* DNS namespaces (e.g., corporate networks), whether we like it or not, and the current text in the mdns draft section 3 is incompatible with this (i.e., it proposes to break them). The current practice is cited in many places including: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kato-dnsop-local-zones-00 > While it has yet been described in a RFC, .local is used to provide a > local subspace of the DNS tree. Formal delegation process has not been > completed for this TLD. In spite of this informal status, .local has > been used in many installations regardless of the awareness of the > users. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-level_domain > The top-level pseudo domain local is required by the Zeroconf protocol. > It is also used by many organizations internally, which may become a > problem for those users as Zeroconf becomes more popular. And there's lots of places people have complained about this conflict with mdns, such as: http://lists.apple.com/archives/Macnetworkprog/2004/Oct/msg00089.html http://www.markwilson.co.uk/blog/2007/11/managing-simultaneous-access-to-resources-from-both-internal-and-external-dns-namespaces.htm http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=20040806232315819 etc -Dave _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf