Subject: Re: LLMNR interoperability with Rendezvous?

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

yes.

--
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: 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: Olaf Kolkman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 07:31:05 +0200

Stuart Cheshire <[email-masked]> writes:
 * >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).
 * 
 * The road block is the TTL incompatibility:

Going back to our proposal, you providing us 2 lists. We now have 1 item 
and we like to make sure:

- Is this 1 item the complete list of issues previously discussed and
  that need to be reviewed?

- Is the list of 'new items' an empty list?

We proposed the process so that the working group can make an informed
decision, based on the amount of things that need to be revisited, if
we need to go back and re-argue the issue.

No hidden surprises further down the road ;-) ?

--Olaf Kolkman
  DNSEXT Co-Chair