Dear Colleagues,

we asked this working group to review the LLMNR
specifications and answer a number of questions.

In this mail we want to address the following: "If we do not get
sufficient feedback on this i.e. fewer than 5 people"

Our assessment is as follows:
- Vixie and Lewis responded with doubts on putting this document on
standards track. Lewis explicitly stated he did not read the document.
- Sullivan and Borzmeyer explicitly stated they read and supported
the draft
- Finch only posed a (guiding) question and made no statement
- Thaler supports the document.
- Hall raised a number of security issues and does not seem to
support publication of the document in its current form.

That means that only Sullivan, Borzmeyer, Thaler, and Hall indicated
that they had read the document in detail which does hardly meet the
set quorum (Aboba clearly read the said doc, but think we do not
include him in the count).

Therefore we propose to Inform the AD that this working group has no
quorum to continue work on this document and that it be published as
an informational document. (Possibly after addressing the issues that
Eric came up with).

We would also like to working group for support to work on DNS and
naming API interfaces, such as are in RFC 3493-bis ,in the light of
DNSSEC, ldap, mdns and llmnr. We would need volunteers to pull this

We are sad we have to ask for this consensus position. Bernard has
been an excellent document editor and we, the chairs and others
involved, should have gauged the quorum for this work earlier, and at
several stages of development. This is not the most elegant end of
this process. If you think there are more elegant ways forward please
let us know.

Our apologies to Bernard and others that have been constructively and
co-operatively working on this document.

--Olafur and Olaf

to unsubscribe send a message to with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.