This is a discussion on Re: LLMNR consensus statement - DNS ; >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. ...
>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.
I have great respect for Benard. We worked well together on RFC 3927, and
I was never happy that in this instance we found ourselves on opposite
sides of a debate concerning two documents that were very much like two
twins separated at birth.
I view this as an opportunity to move forward productively, and I welcome
the prospect of working constructively with Bernard and other interested
parties to improve draft-cheshire-dnsext-multicastdns.txt. This gives us
the chance to improve and enhance the protocol currently being used on
tens of millions of deployed devices, rather than architecting a
competing document which may well have gone nowhere.
* Wizard Without Portfolio, Apple Computer, Inc.
to unsubscribe send a message to email@example.com with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.