Subject: Re: LLMNR is done

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 17:38:38 +0000

> I've weighed in on this several times in the past - the only reason
> I've stopped saying anything about it is because I've given up hope in
> the process - it's seemed recently that there was no interest at all
> in making LLMNR and Rendezvous interoperate.  It sounds like this is
> not actually the case, and that a lot of other folks have been silent
> as well, perhaps for the same reason.  :'/

i think aboba's assessment may be accurate, which is that these are
different protocols with different applicability statements.  if that's
true then simply advancing both of them, each with an applicability
statement that makes clear why it exists and what its purpose and scope
is, is a reasonable approach.

for example, i saw a demo where a mac found a desktop printer without
either one of them having an ip address, and a mac found an mp3 jukebox
without either one of them having an ip address.  the chooser/browser
widget just came up and showed what it found.  is this sufficiently
different from llmnr's target and purpose that we can reasonably say
that both protocols can be advanced, and both will be in the field, and
they are not competing approaches to the same problem space?

--
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: Alain Durand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 10:31:51 -0800

I really have a hard time with the idea that LLMNR & Rendez-vous address 
different needs.
There is so much overlap that, in a normal worl, convergence would be 
the most sensible avenue.
If we, as a collection of vocal individuals, cannot put ego aside and 
can't converge, please, at least,
let's make those two interoperable.

    - Alain.

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 14:18:01 -0500

Paul - can you explain what you mean by "without either one of them having
an ip address".  If I take that statement literally, I wonder why the IETF
would be interested in a protocol that doesn't use IP?

- Ralph

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 06:17:58 +0900

Paul;

> is, is a reasonable approach.

As both of them are designed for closed home network with
dumb administration (which means it is crazy to make TTL
of multicast larger than 1, even more crazy than that of
DHCPv6) and neither of them are useful for hosts connected
to the public internet, we, Internet ETF, should not mind
so much how they evolve or ruin, as long as it is made
clear that they are not useful to the Internet and should
not be used on hosts connected to the Internet.

							Masataka Ohta

---

From: "Al Costanzo" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 17:43:39 -0500

Are you speaking about an old protocol (non-routable) that does not need IP
because it just finds MAC addresses on small nets? (kinda sorta like one of
the options HP has/had for thier network printers?)

-Al