Subject: Re: Response to LLMNR Last Call Comments

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 07:48:09 -0400

Hi Bernard,

At 11:10 AM -0700 9/22/05, Bernard Aboba wrote:
>However, that is really an orthogonal issue as far as LLMNR is concerned.
>At this point, LLMNR has also shipped in multiple implementations, and
>given the past history of IETF activity, I doubt there is anyone interested
>in working on a "merger" effort.
>
>The only reasonable thing to do is to address the LC comments, publish
>(as Experimental or Informational, probably) and move on.

Just FYI --

I support the course of action that Bernard has suggested above, and 
I would be happy to bring this draft to the IESG for publication as 
an Informational RFC once the technical issues raised in IETF LC have 
been addressed.  I think that it would be valuable to have a 
published specification for this mechanism, as it is clearly 
implemented.  (I don't think that Experimental publication would be 
best, as this is not really an experiment).

Is this a path that the rest of the WG supports?  Or would the WG 
prefer to continue efforts to get this document published as a 
Proposed Standard?

Margaret

--
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: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 06:14:16 -0700 (PDT)

> Just FYI --
> 
> I support the course of action that Bernard has suggested above, and I would
> be happy to bring this draft to the IESG for publication as an Informational
> RFC once the technical issues raised in IETF LC have been addressed.  

Draft -44 clarifies the protocol issues that were raised in IETF LC.

However, it does not address the issues (APIs, DNS resolver 
behavior) which did not relate to LLMNR and constituted the bulk of the 
comments.  The DNSEXT WG will need to address these issues separately.