RE: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

Christian Huitema wrote: >if an application tries to resolve >"host.local" through, say, gethostbyname, then the query will >indeed be forwarded to the local DNS service. The responsibility >for the ".local" traffic lies mostly into whoever is promoting use >of this top level domain and coding tha

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 12:29:37PM -0400, Margaret Wasserman wrote: > Other than a few minor issues that are being dealt with in a -43 > update, I don't think that anyone has raised a blocking technical > issue with the LLMNR specification during this IETF LC. If you (or I did not follow the d

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

On 31.08 14:47, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > That is about 1/3 of the total. It doesn't surprise me at all that > so many bogus queries arrive - everybody who mistypes a TLD or > misconfigures a default domain generates bogus queries, and this isn't > going to change. The question is whether .loca

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

At 13:34 01/09/2005, Keith Moore wrote: You appear to be confusing "a protocol for resolving names locally" with "a protocol for resolving local names". They don't have to be the same thing. I fail to see what these propositions bring that local name servers with small addition in db.local a

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

Keith Moore writes: > LLMNR isn't a competitor to mDNS. They attempt to address different > problems. We see to be living in some kind of Alice Through the Looking Glass world here. The llmnr drafts are even called `-mdns-' ! > I favor adoption of LLMNR because in a world of disconnected and

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

# But what about the other direction? When IETF reserves a name, is it # always null-routed to AS112? It does not seem so, ".example" (RFC # 2606), for instance, is not "delegated". if as112 is asked, my bet is, as112 will cooperate. for .example, as112 wasn't asked. (yet?)

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 02:58:17PM +, Paul Vixie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote a message of 19 lines which said: > yes, but only when some rfc reserves .local the way rfc1918 reserves > the 10.in-addr.arpa and other names handled by AS112. (IANA will, > properly, refuse to add a .LOCAL NS RR p

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

# That said, if people want to limit the effect of these 'bogus' queries # onto the root servers I suggest that ISP's join into the AS112 project. # Also it would maybe be an idea for AS112 to add .local there? yes, but only when some rfc reserves .local the way rfc1918 reserves the 10.in-addr.arp

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > > I don't understand how you can be in favor of LLMNR while at the same time > being opposed to confusion between local and global ("DNS") names. In theory, > I suppose it's possible that the information available over LLMNR and the > information av

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

On Thu, 01 Sep 2005, Keith Moore wrote: > LLMNR doesn't provide lookups for "local names" - it provides a local > service that can be used to query for attributes of DNS names. In other words, if I understand correctly, LLMNR is intended for use in the situation where your printer is named somethi

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

On 1-sep-2005, at 13:34, Keith Moore wrote: No. Or at least, the point of having something like a link-local name resolution protocol is that you can use the same interfaces to look up the local names when using the link-local protocol, as you do when looking up real DNS names when using

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

Maybe something like a Service Location Protocol, so that one could query by a combination of properties, not just name? Keith Moore wrote: Dave Singer wrote: The whole idea that 'real DNS' can arbitrarily pre-empt local name resolution seems, well, wrong, and needs serious study for security

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

The whole idea that local names should look like DNS names and be queried through the same APIs and user interfaces seems, well, wrong (or dubious at best), and needs serious study for the implications of applications using those APIs and the impact of such names on DNS, no? No. Or at least

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

Dave Singer wrote: I'm a by-stander on this discussion, maybe off-base or out of it -- but something other than the undesirable traffic struck me. Isn't it also true that I might *deliberately break* all sorts of things by introducing 'blocking' names into DNS responses, so that an LLMNR requ

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

A friend just called to teach me how to spell LLMNR. Sorry I can not do that without looking it up. And he told me not to be so harsh with it. Yes they need it. Their bot controler needs it. No, you dont need a windows for the controler, MAC or Linux does nicely. But the total cost of ownershi

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

Keith Moore writes ("Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard"): > The whole idea that local names should look like DNS names and be > queried through the same APIs and user interfaces seems, well, wrong (or >

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

On Thu, 2005-09-01 at 09:38 +0200, Frank Ellermann wrote: > Jeroen Massar wrote: > > > [for as112 project: maybe add .local into the list of domains??] > > (?) Better add ".local" to a hypothetical 2606bis. Bye, Frank Full ack. Greets, Jeroen signature.asc Description: This is a digitall

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

Jeroen Massar wrote: > [for as112 project: maybe add .local into the list of domains??] (?) Better add ".local" to a hypothetical 2606bis. Bye, Frank ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

[for as112 project: maybe add .local into the list of domains??] On Wed, 2005-08-31 at 14:24 -0700, Christian Huitema wrote: > > >Windows 98, Windows 2000 and Windows XP do not enable LLMNR by > default. > > > > Christian, could you please tell us, for each OS mentioned, how to > enable > > LLMNR

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

Dave Singer wrote: The whole idea that 'real DNS' can arbitrarily pre-empt local name resolution seems, well, wrong, and needs serious study for security implications for the services using those names, no? The whole idea that local names should look like DNS names and be queried through the

RE: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

I'm a by-stander on this discussion, maybe off-base or out of it -- but something other than the undesirable traffic struck me. Isn't it also true that I might *deliberately break* all sorts of things by introducing 'blocking' names into DNS responses, so that an LLMNR request is never issued.

RE: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

> >Windows 98, Windows 2000 and Windows XP do not enable LLMNR by default. > > Christian, could you please tell us, for each OS mentioned, how to enable > LLMNR? That would enable everyone participating in this discussion to > witness for themselves exactly how it works and what it does. You woul

RE: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

Christian Huitema wrote: >Windows 98, Windows 2000 and Windows XP do not enable LLMNR by default. Christian, could you please tell us, for each OS mentioned, how to enable LLMNR? That would enable everyone participating in this discussion to witness for themselves exactly how it works and what

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005, Margaret Wasserman wrote: > > The LLMNR document already includes an informative reference to > draft-cheshire-dnsext-multicastdns-05.txt, but it does so rather obscurely > (citing a need to use a TTL of 255 for "compatibility with Apple Bonjour"). That doesn't make sense. Why

RE: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

Christian Huitema writes ("RE: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard"): > A key technical difference between LLMNR and the initial MDNS proposal > is precisely that LLMNR has no concept of a ".local" top le

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR) ' to Proposed Standard

> On 8/31/2005 12:36 PM, Ned Freed wrote: > > Section 2 states: > that's unfortunate > LLMNR clients need to make a distinction between the different kinds of > networks and then process the names accordingly. Agreed. And there are various ways to accomplish this. > The whole argument behind

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

Margaret Wasserman writes ("Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard"): > Other than a few minor issues that are being dealt with in a -43 > update, I don't think that anyone has raised a blocking technical > issue w

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

Paul Hoffman wrote: At 2:47 PM +0200 8/31/05, Brian E Carpenter wrote: That is about 1/3 of the total. It doesn't surprise me at all that so many bogus queries arrive - everybody who mistypes a TLD or misconfigures a default domain generates bogus queries, and this isn't going to change. The qu

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

Margaret Wasserman writes ("Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard"): > The .local doesn't come from either mDNS or LLMNR... The user types > it and/or an application includes it in the domain name look-up. So,

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR) ' to Proposed Standard

On 8/31/2005 12:36 PM, Ned Freed wrote: > Section 2 states: that's unfortunate LLMNR clients need to make a distinction between the different kinds of networks and then process the names accordingly. The whole argument behind the original distinction between LLMNR and DNS is that ad-hoc names

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR) ' to Proposed Standard

At 2:47 PM +0200 8/31/05, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >That is about 1/3 of the total. It doesn't surprise me at all that >so many bogus queries arrive - everybody who mistypes a TLD or >misconfigures a default domain generates bogus queries, and this isn't >going to change. The question is whether .

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR) ' to Proposed Standard

> On 8/30/2005 2:18 PM, Stuart Cheshire wrote: > > Well, in case 1 (mDNS), no, because it won't return a useful result, so > > why keep doing it? > > > > In case 3 (conventional DNS), no, because it won't return a useful > > result, so why keep doing it? > > > > In case 2 (LLMNR) the answer is ye

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

On 8/30/2005 2:18 PM, Stuart Cheshire wrote: > Well, in case 1 (mDNS), no, because it won't return a useful result, so > why keep doing it? > > In case 3 (conventional DNS), no, because it won't return a useful > result, so why keep doing it? > > In case 2 (LLMNR) the answer is yes, all the t

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

On Wed, 2005-08-31 at 15:24 +0200, Peter Dambier wrote: >> Steve Bellovin wrote. > > At the risk of starting down a tangent, the IETF does not, as a > > technical matter, accept the validity of so-called alternate roots. > > See RFC 2826. > > > > --Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

At 2:47 PM +0200 8/31/05, Brian E Carpenter wrote: That is about 1/3 of the total. It doesn't surprise me at all that so many bogus queries arrive - everybody who mistypes a TLD or misconfigures a default domain generates bogus queries, and this isn't going to change. The question is whether .loc

Alternative roots (was: Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard)

At 3:24 PM +0200 8/31/05, Peter Dambier wrote: the Public-Root is not an alternative root but a solution. makes it very clear that this set of root-like servers intends to answer affirmatively and authoritatively for TLDs that the real/generally-accepted root

RE: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

> From the data gathered by our root-server operators at that moment we > estimate that the traffic for ".local" must have been some 25% A key technical difference between LLMNR and the initial MDNS proposal is precisely that LLMNR has no concept of a ".local" top level domain. Usage of LLMNR doe

Single DNS root (Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard)

--On 31. august 2005 13:08 +0200 Marc Manthey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: i want to correct bills concern that , " peters public root server system" is an alternative for the existing ones and there are several others . Just being pedantic. of course anyone can run any service he wa

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

Steven M. Bellovin wrote: In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marc Manthey writes: i'm going to have to raise the point that Peters "root-server" system is his private "walled-garden" and not representative of the Internet's authoritative root servers. Just for clarification. --bill

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

Brian E Carpenter wrote: Peter, Peter Dambier wrote: Russ Allbery wrote: Margaret Wasserman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Other than a few minor issues that are being dealt with in a -43 update, I don't think that anyone has raised a blocking technical issue with the LLMNR specification d

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

Hi Bill, I am speaking of this root-server system: a.public-root.net. 900 IN A 205.189.71.2 b.public-root.net. 900 IN A 61.9.136.52 c.public-root.net. 900 IN A 68.255.182.111 d.public-root.net. 900 IN A 205.189.71.34

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

Jeroen Massar wrote: On Wed, 2005-08-31 at 13:14 +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote: ... Check for only "K": http://k.root-servers.org/index.html#stats Interresting one here is NXDOMAIN responses: http://k.root-servers.org/stats/linx/xstats_SNXD-all.html (note, that is only the LINX node) It is a l

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

On Wed, 2005-08-31 at 13:14 +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Peter, > > Peter Dambier wrote: > > Russ Allbery wrote: > > > >> Margaret Wasserman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > >> > >>> Other than a few minor issues that are being dealt with in a -43 update, > >>> I don't think that anyone ha

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marc Manthey writes: > >> >> i'm going to have to raise the point that Peters "root-server" >> system >> is his private "walled-garden" and not representative of the >> Internet's >> authoritative root servers. Just for clarification. >> >> --bill >

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

Peter, Peter Dambier wrote: Russ Allbery wrote: Margaret Wasserman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Other than a few minor issues that are being dealt with in a -43 update, I don't think that anyone has raised a blocking technical issue with the LLMNR specification during this IETF LC. If you (

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

On Aug 31, 2005, at 12:50 PM, Bill Manning wrote: On Aug 31, 2005, at 2:25, Peter Dambier wrote: Russ Allbery wrote: Margaret Wasserman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Other than a few minor issues that are being dealt with in a -43 update, I don't think that anyone has raised a blocking tech

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

On Aug 31, 2005, at 2:25, Peter Dambier wrote: Russ Allbery wrote: Margaret Wasserman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Other than a few minor issues that are being dealt with in a -43 update, I don't think that anyone has raised a blocking technical issue with the LLMNR specification during this

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

Russ Allbery wrote: Margaret Wasserman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Other than a few minor issues that are being dealt with in a -43 update, I don't think that anyone has raised a blocking technical issue with the LLMNR specification during this IETF LC. If you (or anyone else) has intended to

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR) ' to Proposed Standard

on 2005-08-31 05:40 Jeffrey Hutzelman said the following: > > On Tuesday, August 30, 2005 15:55:56 -0700 Ned Freed > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> IMO this needs major work even before being approved as experimental. The >> overlapped namespace approach in particular seems hugely problematic a

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR) ' to Proposed Standard

On Tuesday, August 30, 2005 15:55:56 -0700 Ned Freed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: IMO this needs major work even before being approved as experimental. The overlapped namespace approach in particular seems hugely problematic and IMO needs to be replaced. I've only read this document briefly,

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR) ' to Proposed Standard

One more thing: On 31-aug-2005, at 0:55, Ned Freed wrote: Section 2.4 discusses use of TCP for LLMNR queries and responses. In composing an LLMNR query using TCP, the sender MUST set the Hop Limit field in the IPv6 header and the TTL field in the IPv4 header of the respons

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

Margaret Wasserman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Other than a few minor issues that are being dealt with in a -43 update, > I don't think that anyone has raised a blocking technical issue with the > LLMNR specification during this IETF LC. If you (or anyone else) has > intended to raise a blockin

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

Stuart Cheshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > What happened here was *not* that the DNSEXT working group disagreed > with me on the technical details of my solution. What happened was that > the DNSEXT working group disagreed with me on the problem statement. I > said, "Here's a proposed way to do

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR) ' to Proposed Standard

On 10-aug-2005, at 20:47, The IESG wrote: > The IESG has received a request from the DNS Extensions WG to > consider the > following document: > - 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR) ' > as a Proposed Standard > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and sol

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

On 10-aug-2005, at 20:47, The IESG wrote: The IESG has received a request from the DNS Extensions WG to consider the following document: - 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR) ' as a Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

Yes, that is exactly what our unvolontary experiment has shown. And it makes 25% of our root server traffic. It is stealing resources from us. That is why we consider this protocol harmful to the internet society. Kind regards, Peter and Karin Stuart Cheshire wrote: As I understand it, one of

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

>As I understand it, one of three things will happen: > >(1) If the system implements mDNS, the .local domain is treated >specially, so this just goes out as a link-local request. > >(2) If the system implements LLMNR, there will first be a global DNS >lookup for "twiki.local", which will fail.

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

Hi Brian, I'm afraid I don't understand. As far as I can understand, mDNS uses the .local pseudo-domain and LLMNR does not. So how can LLMNR be blamed for bogus queries for *.local? The .local doesn't come from either mDNS or LLMNR... The user types it and/or an application includes it in t

RE: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

> > I'm afraid I don't understand. As far as I can understand, > > mDNS uses the .local pseudo-domain and LLMNR does not. > > So how can LLMNR be blamed for bogus queries for *.local? > > I cannot garantie it was LLMNR. I was told these are windows boxes > using the default enabled LLMNR and it de

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

or why. Well, if you do not use ".local" on your box why not try ".com" ? It might be fun. :) Peter Dambier wrote: Ian Jackson wrote: Brian E Carpenter writes ("Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' toProposed Standard"):

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

Hi Stuart, Somehow our discussion has gone awry, and I'm not quite sure why, because I am not sure that we fundamentally disagree with each other. At least, I think that we both see some of the same potential problems, even if we disagree about what steps would be appropriate to resolve them

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

>Peter, > >I'm afraid I don't understand. As far as I can understand, >mDNS uses the .local pseudo-domain and LLMNR does not. >So how can LLMNR be blamed for bogus queries for *.local? Simple: If you call your printer "myprinter.local", and then type "ping myprinter.local", LLMNR will *always* sen

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

Looking at the recent discussion and some private emails I've received, it's clear that I didn't explain some points well enough. 1. I'm not claiming this is an Apple vs. Microsoft battle. Bernard Aboba is not a Microsoft corporate shill, and I'm not a shill for Apple. What's happened is more c

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

bier wrote: Ian Jackson wrote: Brian E Carpenter writes ("Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' toProposed Standard"): Ian Jackson wrote: Sorry to be pejorative, but as a DNS implementor[1] I'm amazed to find senior IETF/IESG people

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

Ian Jackson wrote: Brian E Carpenter writes ("Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard"): Ian Jackson wrote: Sorry to be pejorative, but as a DNS implementor[1] I'm amazed to find senior IETF/IESG people seriously contemplat

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

Brian E Carpenter writes ("Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard"): > Ian Jackson wrote: > > Sorry to be pejorative, but as a DNS implementor[1] I'm amazed to find > > senior IETF/IESG people serio

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

bmanning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > we shouldn't. LLMNR has waded through the lengthy IETF > standardization process to get to where it is. That Microsoft has > been patient and spent the money needed to keep people on this > task long enough to get it here should be r

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: LLMNR has waded through the lengthy IETF standardization process to get to where it is. That Microsoft has been patient and spent the money needed to keep people on this task long enough to get it here should be rewarded with the IETF im

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

Ian Jackson wrote: Brian E Carpenter writes ("Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard"): Russ Allbery wrote: ... I think your criteria doesn't survive logical scrutiny. If other people have access to the standard, c

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

On Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 11:21:06AM -0400, Keith Moore wrote: > >I am perhaps just being slow and dim-witted after minor surgery, but why > >should a protocol that no-one will use be standards track ? > > Why should we accept a few (mostly axe-grinding) peoples' assertions > that no-one will use i

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

On 8/26/05 at 5:59 PM -0400, Steven M. Bellovin wrote: What I find amusing is so many people asking the IESG to overrule a WG's judgment, given how many people have complained about the IESG's power to do exactly that. I haven't checked for overlap between the two groups... I have never hea

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ian Jackson writes : > >Sorry to be pejorative, but as a DNS implementor[1] I'm amazed to find >senior IETF/IESG people seriously contemplating the kind of namespace >confusion which is fundamental in the LLMNR protocol design. > What I find amusing is so many peop

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

hopefully convalesce Marshall Eubanks wrote following important lines why should a protocol that no-one will use be standards track ? This discussion is beginning to remind me of the scientific standards processes involving the Soviet bloc that I was involved with during the Cold War. That is

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

At Fri, 26 Aug 2005 11:28:44 -0700, Bill Manning wrote: > > then there was the debate over if this was DNS or something else... > Stewart & I took the stance, yes it was/is. Yep, this was the original sticking point. In particular, there were folks (myself among them) who felt strong

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

On Aug 26, 2005, at 10:36, Russ Allbery wrote: Presumably the DNS working group has some incredibly strong arguments that trump running code or they wouldn't have made the choices that they have. Let's see them, and furthermore, let's see them *in the document* or at least in a supporting in

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'm finding this discussion quite disturbing. You're not the only one, and I'm not even directly affected by this decision. > It seems that the proposal is that the IETF should bless LLMNR because > LLMNR is on the Blessing Track. > Surely the reasons f

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

On 26-aug-2005, at 0:29, Margaret Wasserman wrote: I wasn't involved at the time, but I understand that the WG did not choose to purse the Apple mDNS proposal and intentionally selected the LLMNR proposal, with the understanding that the standard they produced would not be compatible with t

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

Brian E Carpenter writes ("Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard"): > Russ Allbery wrote: > ... > > I think your criteria doesn't survive logical scrutiny. If other people > > have access to the standard

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

I am perhaps just being slow and dim-witted after minor surgery, but why should a protocol that no-one will use be standards track ? Why should we accept a few (mostly axe-grinding) peoples' assertions that no-one will use it? Keith ___ Ietf mailin

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 06:54:57 -0700 Bill Manning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > there is a fairly extensive history of multicast DNS... > in 1998/1999, along w/ this draft: > > ... so multicast DNS has been around, with various implementations over > the years. > the Apple mDNS spec is not an IETF

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

there is a fairly extensive history of multicast DNS... in 1998/1999, along w/ this draft: Woodcock, B., Manning, B., "Multicast Domain Name Service", draft-manning-dnsext-mdns-02.txt, August 2000. Revied twice now Expired. was this one: Vixie, P., Manning, B., "Supporting unicast replies

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

Russ Allbery wrote: ... I think your criteria doesn't survive logical scrutiny. If other people have access to the standard, can implement the standard, and can build on the standard to create a newer revision of it, I can't imagine what definition of "proprietary" you're using that would apply.

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It is not sufficient to make it an open standard (by your criteria, Java > or PDF would be non-proprietary). The most important criteria is the > fact that the specification is NOT controlled by any given private > entity. If you go look at the do

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

On Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 10:00:39AM +0200, Marc Manthey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote a message of 120 lines which said: > is that enought to show thats not "proprietary" ? It has nothing to do with the criterium I expressed. You just said that Bonjour / Rendez-vous has several free (as in free sp

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

On Aug 26, 2005, at 9:20 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: The most important criteria is the fact that the specification is NOT controlled by any given private entity. is that enought to show thats not "proprietary" ? http://www.macdevcenter.com/pub/a/mac/2004/08/31/osx_java.html http://www-u

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 06:53:12PM -0700, Stuart Cheshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote a message of 20 lines which said: > Please stop calling it "proprietary". "A proprietary solution by any other name would still be proprietary" :-) > The mDNS specificiation is publicly available, and is the

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

Hi Stuart, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to be insulting... We don't typically include statements about how we compete or don't compete with any non-IETF protocols, including de-facto standards and/or standards from other standards groups, as that is more of a marketing discussion than a technic

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

Hi Stuart, Although implementaitons are not strictly required for Proposed Standard publication, I do think that it is interesting to know whether people have implemented, or intend to implement our standards. I have received a couple of private confirmations that LLMNR is implemented in Wi

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

>It is not typical for us to make statements in our standards >regarding what proprietary mechanisms our standards are or are not >intended to compete with, nor do we typically include statements that >compare the features of our standards to proprietary protocols. Please stop calling it "propr

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

>In The Public-Root there used to exist a domain ".local". I know at least >of one ISP who complained we did break a lot of windowed PCs. > >I dont know why queries for ".local" would leave their private LANs and >reach even our root servers. They did! > >That is why we set up a dummy and returned

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

>I don't see anything in RFC 2026 criteria that hinges on whether >Microsoft intends to implement a protocol. Is doesn't have to be Microsoft. Is there *anyone* out there who has implemented this, or plans to? Or am I just being old-fashioned in thinking that the idea behind a protocol specifie

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

Hi Stuart, --On 25. august 2005 10:18 -0700 Stuart Cheshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It would go a long way to ease my concerns if the LLMNR specification stated clearly in its introduction that it's NOT intended to compete with mDNS, because LLMNR doesn't have any of the functionality tha

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

Keith Moore wrote: What is this document for? No one has implemented this LLMNR protocol. No one has any plans to implement this protocol. No company plans to ship products using this protocol. Even Microsoft has not even hinted at plans to use LLMNR in Longhorn/Vista. I don't see anything

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

> What is this document for? No one has implemented this LLMNR protocol. No > one has any plans to implement this protocol. No company plans to ship > products using this protocol. Even Microsoft has not even hinted at plans > to use LLMNR in Longhorn/Vista. I don't see anything in RFC 2026 cr

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

Stuart Cheshire wrote: Putting service discovery requirements aside for a moment, the other big difference between mDNS and LLMNR is that mDNS facilitates local-scoped names, analogous to RFC 1918 addresses. LLMNR lets you look up a host name without a DNS server, but it pre-supposes that you

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

>Stuart, > >do you have a published specification of Apple's mDNS that you can point >people at, so that people can understand what functionality mDNS has that >LLMNR does not? Certainly. The framework document, describing what we need and why we need it, is: Requirements for a Protocol to Re

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

On Aug 25, 2005, at 7:39 PM, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: claims that browsing and service discovery is described in this draft: [DNS-SD] Cheshire, S. "DNS-Based Service Discovery", Internet- Draft

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

--On 25. august 2005 10:18 -0700 Stuart Cheshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It would go a long way to ease my concerns if the LLMNR specification stated clearly in its introduction that it's NOT intended to compete with mDNS, because LLMNR doesn't have any of the functionality that mDNS provid

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

>I do not understand how defining a new, different service on a new >port will kill anything. Are you saying that you *REALLY* do not understand how the IETF defining a new protocol, and stating publicly that it's intended to compete with some established protocol, gives all the appearance of a

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

Hi Peter, At 12:41 PM +0200 8/25/05, Peter Dambier wrote: Stuart Cheshire wrote: The IESG has received a request from the DNS Extensions WG to consider the following document: - 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR) ' as a Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the

  1   2   >