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 simple effective service discovery > using existing DNS record types." The DNSEXT working group said, "The > DNS protocol is not to be used for service discovery. We forbid it, and > furthermore, to prove the point, we're going to design a protocol of our > own that superficially looks like yours but can't be used for service > discovery."
And, of course, this is now a particularly non-sensical position given that DNS is being widely used for service discovery (RFC 2782, which is standards track, not to mention AFSDB records which have been part of DNS since RFC 1183 and are in widespread use in the AFS community despite the experimental status). -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
