On Mar 18, 2011, at 6:25 PM, Vilius Šumskas wrote:
> Friday, March 18, 2011, 7:56:44 PM, you wrote:
>> On Mar 18, 2011, at 2:42 AM, Vilius Šumskas wrote:
>>> Thursday, March 17, 2011, 11:35:54 PM, you wrote:
>>>> On Mar 17, 2011, at 5:15 PM, Clint W. Heideman wrote:
>>>>> I have ran several networks using .local on Microsoft AD and "NEVER" had an issue, and I'm not that lucky. Currently my DNS and OpenDirectory are running just fine, it turned out that it wasn't DNS it is an issue with a Home Directory setup. Thanks for the help.
>>>> Consider it good that your specific problem is resolved. Just be
>>>> aware there is a problem with using .local as a DNS domain, it is
>>>> not a valid DNS name for a start. And .local is used outside of DNS according to other RFCs.
>>> Oh here we go again. Which RFC is that Dan?
>> .local is used for RFC3224, RFC2608, RFC2782, RFC3927, and RFC4862
>> by zeroconfig/bonjour/avahi/zcip/dhcpd for link-local addresses and
>> for mDNS and that's used by Mac OS X, *BSD, Linux, Solaris, Windows,
>> VMS, and most modern or Internet savvy OSen. It's implemented by
>> numerous hardware vendors as well such as Roku, TiVo, Samsung, HP,
>> Novell and Sun/Oracle and as part of just about every network
>> printer vendor. It's used by DNS-SD as well and under Windows is
>> implemented as SSDP. Its supported in CUPS as well. It's also found used in the ACN set of protocols.
>> .local is very explicitly covered in its IETF Draft, which is the
>> same as an RFC. It's been in force since 13th July 2001 and the
>> latest may be found at
> Sorry Dan, but NONE of your mentioned RFCs contains .local in it.
They don't need to.
> As for IETF Draft, it's been a draft since 2001 and it seems nobody really
> cares about it except Apple. And NO it's not an RFC and it's not "in
Not at all, there's a lot of interest in it beyond Apple which is part of the reason why it's an IETF Draft. I'd note that Microsoft has their hand in it too. The IETF has renewed it as a draft standard total 14 times. And yes, IETF drafts have just as much force as an RFC, in fact the latter have less in many cases. The process to ratify standards isn't as quick as it was back in 1990. And in this particular case it's draft because the technologies are coalescing.
Specifically: "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.""
That is the are valid but may be updated or replaced as they work it covers evolves, hence they are renewed every six months. If there was not enough interest or activity the IETF would opt to not renew, but there is work and it is renewed. And realize you're talking to an IETF member, I do know a bit about this.
You may also want to note its companion IEFT Drafts:
It's for reasons like the above that they're curently drafts, they're all going to likely get rolled into one.
And you may also note that these are the same authors as RFC3927 and Stuart Cheshire works closely with Bernard Aboba from Microsoft on this as well as the relevant dhcpd involvement like in RFC3397. Bernard was also the IETF liason to IEEE for 802.x which are ratified standards and he's been a driver for link-local and zeroconfig/bonjour there -- and those will be hard IEEE ratified /standards/ which carry a lot more force than an RFC. Because with roll out of zeroconfig/.local as part of link-local in things like printers and network appliances its going to need to be more than an RFC.
But hey... do what you want, you don't have to follow any RFCs if you don't want to either, just expect your interoperability to suck. And that's what we're really talking about here too, in the OP.
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Macos-x-server mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden