Subject: Document Action: 'Link-local Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Informational RFC

From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 10:54:21 -0500

The IESG has approved the following document:

- 'Link-local Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR) '
   <draft-ietf-dnsext-mdns-47.txt> as an Informational RFC

This document is the product of the DNS Extensions Working Group. 

The IESG contact persons are Mark Townsley and Jari Arkko.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsext-mdns-47.txt

Technical Summary
 
   The goal of Link-Local Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR) is to enable
   name resolution in scenarios in which conventional DNS name
   resolution is not possible.  LLMNR supports all current and future
   DNS formats, types and classes, while operating on a separate port
   from DNS, and with a distinct resolver cache.  Since LLMNR only
   operates on the local link, it cannot be considered a substitute for
   DNS.
 
Working Group Summary
 
   This document is a work item of the DNSEXT WG. 

   In the early stages, there was a great deal of contention regarding
   which of two roughly equivalent mechanisms the WG would use as 
   the basis of this work.  Some disagreement persists about whether
   the WG made the best choice, given non-technical factors, such as
   market position.

   The WG now is asking that this document be published as Informational.

   More information on this may be found here:

   http://psg.com/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2006/msg00363.html 
 
Protocol Quality
 
    This document has been reviewed for the IESG by Margaret Wasserman
    and Mark Townsley.

Note to RFC Editor
 
OLD:

[b]  IPsec ESP with a null-transform MAY be used to authenticate unicast
     LLMNR queries and responses or LLMNR responses to multicast

NEW:

[b]  IPsec ESP with a NULL encryption algorithm MAY be used to
authenticate
     unicast LLMNR queries and responses or LLMNR responses to multicast

IESG Note

This document was originally intended for advancement as a Proposed
Standard, but the IETF did not achieve consensus on the approach. The
document has had significant review and input. At time of publication,
early versions were implemented and deployed.

_______________________________________________
IETF-Announce mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce