| |||||||||||||
Not yet even a proprosed IETF standardNot yet even a proprosed IETF standardPosted Aug 25, 2005 13:21 UTC (Thu) by nealmcb (subscriber, #20740)Parent article: Guten Tag from Avahi
Sounds like a useful development, and thanks for the update. But it looks to me like the standardization effort hasn't even gotten out of the "draft" stage.
'Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."'
So discussing whether an implementation implents various requirements needs to be understood in that context. It may be that in this case this stuff is pretty well agreed on. Or not. But just remember that it can really hurt interoperability to have widely deployed software that conflicts with a standard when it does get published.
See RFC2026 http://ietf.org/rfc/rfc2026.txt for more on how the IETF standards process works.
(Log in to post comments)
Not yet even a proprosed IETF standard Posted Aug 25, 2005 14:05 UTC (Thu) by nedrichards (guest, #23295) [Link] >But just remember that it can really hurt interoperability to have widely deployed software that conflicts with a standard when it does get published.
You mean like every Mac made since OS X 10.2?
Not yet even a proprosed IETF standard Posted Aug 25, 2005 23:26 UTC (Thu) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] The IETF process requires working implementations, which means that they don't expect people to wait around until the spec is approved before implementing something. If the spec changes, I'm sure that the open source implementations will be changed to match. Sometimes proprietary vendors might decide not to change in the hope that they can lock people in, but for something like zeroconf, it only works if everyone can speak the protocol.
Not yet even a proprosed IETF standard Posted Aug 26, 2005 0:08 UTC (Fri) by nealmcb (subscriber, #20740) [Link] I agree. Sorry if it sounded like I was criticizing the implementors. My only point was that the _article_ leaves the impression that there is a published standard against which to evaluate the implementation. E.g. it talks of "using the same specifications as Apple's Bonjour". In fact there is not yet a standard. The latest draft is from June, after Apple shipped Bonjour, and there will likely be more drafts to come. And note it often goes the other way around in the IETF - the drafting of the standard relies in part on implementation efforts and experiences like this one.
I just thought the reader needed to know how much all of this is still potentially in flux.
Not yet even a proprosed IETF standard Posted Aug 31, 2005 1:02 UTC (Wed) by kitterma (subscriber, #4448) [Link] A lot of discussion about why on the main ietf list starting here:
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/curre...
In summary, here:
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg373...
Scott K
IETF DNSEXT working group prefers LLMDR over mDNS Posted Aug 31, 2005 22:48 UTC (Wed) by nealmcb (subscriber, #20740) [Link] When I posted my first comment I was just reacting to what seemed to be imprecise wording in the article. Thanks to the head's up by kitterma, I now see that in fact the IETF DNSEXT working group is proposing LLMDR instead of mDNS. We'll see how the IESG views the debate soon.
Wikipedia has this to say (chime in if you can!):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeroconf
Here is another perspective by Keith Moore:
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg371...
I don't know which is better - just trying to avoid misunderstanding.
|
|||||||||||||