Stuart Cheshire said:

"I have great respect for Bernard. 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."

My view is that Stuart and I are actually on the same side -- had the IETF
not intervened I have little doubt that there would be a single multicast
link-local name resolution protocol today, interoperating on all
platforms. We worked together on RFC 3927, we just recently worked
together on DNAv4, and I look forward to working with Stuart again in the

"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."

Given the past history, I have my doubts as to whether the IETF has
anything to contribute here, even in terms of "improving" or
"enhancing" mDNS. More likely is that the IETF will not standardize
any specifications; it is even possible that no documents will be published
as RFCs. That's not a very satisfactory end to a process that began seven
years ago at the Networking in the Small (NITS) BOF at IETF 44 in
Minneapolis in March 1999.

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