[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: zeroconf name resolution does not mean necessarily DNS

To: Alain Durand <Alain.Durand@sun.com>
Subject: Re: zeroconf name resolution does not mean necessarily DNS
From: Bernard Aboba <aboba@internaut.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 09:34:03 -0800 (PST)
cc: namedroppers@ops.ietf.org, sob@harvard.edu
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20011211092328.01e359a8@jurassic.eng.sun.com>

> If zeroconf requirements are broken, they should be fixed.

Agreed. Perhaps the way to accomplish this is to bring the document to
IETF last call (checked and only WG last call is complete) so that
comments from DNSEXT WG and other sources can be incorporated. Right now
the Zeroconf WG believes that it is "done". 




to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.

References:
- Re: zeroconf name resolution does not mean necessarily DNS
  - From: Alain Durand <Alain.Durand@sun.com>

Prev by Date: Re: zeroconf name resolution does not mean necessarily DNS
Next by Date: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dnsext-restrict-key-for-dnssec-00.txt
Prev by thread: Re: zeroconf name resolution does not mean necessarily DNS
Next by thread: Re: zeroconf name resolution does not mean necessarily DNS
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread