Subject: LLMNR interoperability with Rendezvous?

From: Stuart Cheshire <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 11:03:35 -0700

I'm asking this question at the suggestion of Ólafur Gudmundsson.

Is there any interest in this working group in making LLMNR interoperate 
with Rendezvous?

In addition to Mac OS 9 and OS X, there's Rendezvous for Linux, Windows, 
VxWorks and other platforms. There are Rendezvous network printers, 
network scanners, headless Rendezvous file servers, consumer electronics 
home Hi-Fi equipment, home media servers, and so on.

LLMNR could interoperate with that installed base with only a few trivial 
changes, but the will to make those changes depends on whether the 
working group has any interest in interoperability.

Opinions?

Stuart Cheshire <[email-masked]>
 * Wizard Without Portfolio, Apple Computer, Inc.
 * www.stuartcheshire.org

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 18:32:45 +0000

yes.

---

From: Rob Austein <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 14:56:11 -0400

> working group has any interest in interoperability.

If the differences are in fact trivial, yes, but let's see the
proposal before making that judgement.

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 14:57:02 -0400

> working group has any interest in interoperability.

It would be disappointing, to say the least, if LLMNR and Rendezvous didn't 
interoperate.

---

From: "Eric A. Hall" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 14:34:04 -0500

on 8/28/2003 1:03 PM Stuart Cheshire wrote:

> LLMNR could interoperate with that installed base with only a few
> trivial changes, but the will to make those changes depends on whether
> the working group has any interest in interoperability.

Lacking any specifics, yes, it would be a good thing.

What are the necessary changes?

-- 
Eric A. Hall                                        http://www.ehsco.com/
Internet Core Protocols          http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/

---

From: Mika Liljeberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 22:48:00 +0300

> proposal before making that judgement.

My thoughts exactly.

	MikaL

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 19:46:01 -0400

Having little personal experience with Rendezvous or LLMNR, or desire to
use either of them, I'd say that they should interoperate. Now that I
know there are more than OS X using it, maybe I'll encounter it.

]      Out and about in Ottawa.    hmmm... beer.                |  firewalls  [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON    |net architect[
] [email-masked] http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
] panic("Just another Debian/notebook using, kernel hacking, security guy");  [

---

From: Aidan Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 09:55:23 +1000

> working group has any interest in interoperability.

I think that would be a useful thing to achieve.
Some details spelling out what needs to be changed would help.
- aidan

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 09:58:43 +0900

> Is there any interest in this working group in making LLMNR interoperate

sure.  what changes will be needed in rendezvous?

randy

---

From: Olaf Kolkman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 09:45:38 +0200

Stuart Cheshire <[email-masked]> writes:
* I'm asking this question at the suggestion of Ólafur Gudmundsson.

Stuart and other namedroppers,

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 11:03:35 -0700
Stuart Cheshire <[email-masked]> wrote:
  * I'm asking this question at the suggestion of Ólafur Gudmundsson.

Allow me to quote what we - chairs - wrote to you privately and then
propose a process to keep impulse and get a satisfying protocol as
working-group result.

<quote from previous private mail From: Olafur To: Stuart>

  Dear Stuart,

  The question if the document should be made interoperable with
  Rendezvous should be asked to the mailing list so that the working
  group can decide.

  However, the document went through numerous cycles during which issues
  where thoroughly discussed. The issue of the TTL=1 has review from the
  working group and that issue is not to be opened again.

  If LLMNR and Rendezvous can be made compatible without reopening old
  issues, and the working group wants to pursue, we will allow further
  discussion. If there are items, that went through working group review
  and have been decided upon (such as the TTL issue) and are prohibiting
  compatibility than we am afraid that we will have to submit the
  document to the IESG as-is.

  The issues discussed and resolved can be found at
    http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/DNSEXT/llmnrissues.html

  If you can provide the working group a list of 'original' issues that
  need to be addressed to make the protocol compatible with rendezvous
  and the working group is happy to address these we can continue
  working on the draft.

  From a working group perspective the work is otherwise done; we cannot
  go back and revisit the issues.

  We would be happy to add to our last call report that similar work is
  ongoing.

-- Olaf Kolkman and Olafur Gudmundsson
     DNSEXT Chairs

</quote>

Our proposal:

Stuart, please provide the working group with a list with issues
previously not discussed and a separate list of items that have been
discussed. Please provide that list before the end of next week (Sep
7).

From the list of issues that already have been discussed and decided
upon we propose you provide a technical motivation for the choices
that were made for rendezvous and the reason why they cannot be
brought in-line with the draft.

If there are incompatibilities with rendezvous and the draft that can
be fixed by fixing rendezvous, it would be nice to know about.

We will give the document editors the opportunity to argue that
changing the text to achieve compatibility is not trivial (a pointer
to the archives, and maybe a 2 line abstract, is sufficient).

After that we will ask the working group if there is consensus to 'the
list and the motivations justifying review'. We will default to 'no
consensus for justification' if there is no, or too little, response
to that question. 

The list of original issues is open to discussion, no question, but
that is only relevant if the review of old issues accepted by the
group.

This document has been on the table for quite some time, issues
brought up where extremely well managed by the document editors. We do
not want to see the document stalled because of late participation in
the process; revisiting closed items is not productive.

-- Olaf Kolkman and Olafur Gudmundsson
   DNSEXT Chairs

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 18:14:12 +0859 ()

It seems to me that the question should be whether the protocol
called Rendezvous is good enough or not.

If it is not, we should keep LLMNR, which may or may not interoperate
with Rendezvous.

If it is, we should simply use it and abandon LLMNR.

						Masataka Ohta

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 15:12:40 +0000

> If it is, we should simply use it and abandon LLMNR.

as a proponent of the DISCOVER opcode, i have some sympathy for the above
position.  however, rendezvous and llmnr are not merely different ways to
accomplish the same thing... they accomplish different things.  for example
when selecting a printer or file server, apple's macos/x users see the list
of available resources instantly when they bring up a "chooser" panel; this
is because the services periodically solicit themselves in some multicast
kind of way.  to do resource discovery of this kind with llmnr would mean
a short delay when the panel was being initialized, while all relevant
servers and printers heard a query and sent a reply.  i do not think that
apple would consider llmnr a successful replacement for rendezvous as long
as this feature difference existed.

i think it's clear that "architecture" did not happen with regard to dns
and multicast.  so i really do have sympathy for the above position.

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 02:47:18 +0859 ()

Paul;

> accomplish the same thing... they accomplish different things.

A problem is that it is often the case that some of the accomplished
thing may not be so useful that they should be compared only with
useful features.

> for example

Thank you.

The remaining question is whether rendezvous is a successful replacement
for llmnr or not.

It is my understanding that llmnr is not DNS and requirements for
llmnr can be satisfied if some sort of discovery is supported,
even if the packet format is not identical to that of DNS.

							Masataka Ohta

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 07:05:09 +0900 (JST)

is dns-sd part of Rendezvous included in the current discussion?
	i assumed not.

> as this feature difference existed.

	the above talks about dns-sd part, i guess.

itojun