Subject: Re: LLMNR interoperability with Rendezvous?

From: Ólafur Gudmundsson/DNSEXT co-chair <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 18:45:10 -0400

At 22:04 2003-09-19, Stuart Cheshire wrote:
> >This entire episode, including the reversal of the rough consensus
> >favoring TTL=1 for link-local traffic in the ZeroConf WG, brings to mind
> >the freshman engineering example in which a column is removed from a
> >room for aesthetic reasons, rendering the entire building weak.
> >Please do not mess with the foundation without compelling reasons!
>
>John, you have this completely backwards.
>
>Up to draft-ietf-dnsext-mdns-17.txt, it said:
>
> >In composing an LLMNR response, the responder MUST set the Hop Limit
> >field in the IPv6 header and the TTL field in IPv4 header of the LLMNR
> >response to 255.  The sender MUST verify that the Hop Limit field in
> >IPv6 header and TTL field in IPv4 header of each response to the LLMNR
> >query is set to 255.  If it is not, then sender MUST ignore the
> >response.
>
>It was only a couple of months ago, after Apple and other companies had
>been shipping products for over a year, that DNSEXT decided to reverse
>its consensus.
>
>You may remember that I was one of the people who argued for TTL=1 in the
>first place, but I was swayed by the working group consensus, so we
>shipped with TTL=255, and then the working group changed its mind back
>again.

Stewart,

You shipped code against an uncompleted specification and as it goes
there was development on the TTL issue and consensus changed. Some
room has been provided to review the issue but the fact that there is
code shipped against an uncompleted specification is not a valid
argument in that review, only an argument to revisit the issue.

Thus you on your own and with known consequences decided to ship code
against uncompleted specification.
If your company wants interoperabilty they can update distributions,
and possibly at the same time a put in a kludge to talk to the
old implementations.

         Sorry but that is the cold facts.
         Olafur DNSEXT co-chair.

--
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: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 16:23:28 -0700 (PDT)

> >been shipping products for over a year, that DNSEXT decided to reverse

	what consensus? i've not seen any RFC that describes consensus
	on this topic.

> You shipped code against an uncompleted specification and as it goes

	is the llmnr spec complete?  has it gone past last call
	and reached IESG approval to publish as an RFC?  if not,
	there is still time to tweek the spec to meet empirical, operational
	feedback.

>          Olafur DNSEXT co-chair.

--bill

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 04:39:22 +0000

> and possibly at the same time a put in a kludge to talk to the

you cannot possibly be serious.  apple should have waited an extra two
years to deploy functionality necessary to its product/service technology
simply because the volunteers of namedroppers couldn't be bothered to do
a rigorous enough review to be able to figure out a ttl issue?

that's not just unlikely, it's insane.  it'll never happen and shouldn't
happen.  meanwhile the new products entering the field won't be compatible
with anything previously existing in the field.  if i were a hardware or
software vendor i'd either support both or support rendezvous, just to
make sure there was somebody to sell it to on day 1.

penalizing apple for trying hard to play well with others but launching
their best guess when the deadline loomed isn't going to be effective and
would not be ethical even if it was.