Dave Cridland writes:
So I reiterate - I see no reason not to charter a working group to
revise this specification (and dns-sd), and I would welcome such a
group being chartered such that it cannot make any incompatible
changes to the protocol.
+1
Except that I'd put the compatibility requirement in terms of deployed
code rather than the current draft. Mumble SRV RR mumble compression
mumble. "The final RFC must be compatible with <a> version <b>, <c>
version <d> and <e> version <f>, and if possible with other deployed
implementations known to the WG" for some values of a-f.
Arnt
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
