Subject: RE: draft-manning-multicast-dns-00.txt

From: Bill Woodcock <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 09:35:43 -0700 (PDT)

> You said MZAP removes configured multicast addresses

No, I said that MZAP or a similar protocol may allow hosts to 
discover the extent of a local scope other than 239/8.

    > though you think configured multicast addresses are bad.

I wouldn't say that I think that, since I'm not positive what you
mean by "configured multicast addresses."  If you mean statically
assigned relative addresses, I think they're a great idea.  If you
mean treating statically assigned relative addresses as though 
they were always relative to 239/8, I think that's an absolutely
reasonable quick hack, since it would only be done on machines 
which didn't understand MZAP, which believe themselves, by 
definition, to exist within the local scope 239/8.

    > Maybe, you are drafting a protocol to remove configured 
    > multicast addresses from MZAP. 

Nope, absolutely not.

    > Let's call it MZAPACP (MZAP auto configuration protocol).

I'll leave that one to you.

    > Now, the only problem is that MZAPACP has configured 
    > multicast addresses. Of course, the prolem is solved 
    > by MZAPACPACP.

If you have a problem with either MZAP or statically-assigned
relative addresses, you should probably take them up with Dave
Meyer, or with the MZAP working group, rather than me, since I
don't have any real stake in either.

			-Bill