Talk:Zero configuration networking

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Microsoft against UPnP and for DPWS

Microsoft is not supporting UPnP anymore. One clear sign of this is that Vista only supports UPnP v1.0. Apparently - Microsoft wanted to pass throught their DPWS (Device profile for Web services) as UPnP v2.0. Since UPnP forum prioritised backwards-compatibility - it didnt go any further. However, Microsoft has implemented DPWS in Vista. Meaning - Microsoft will try to fight this war alone, and abandon UPnP. Can anyone tell me why!? DPWS is "very good", but so is UPnP. It really seems to me that both do the same thing - only in a different way. One can hardly say one is better than the other.


Was this renamed OpenTalk?

No, this is now called Bonjour (trademark problems, I believe). Here's an updated link: Apple's implementation--198.3.8.1 22:01, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What about Windows XP's "Wireless Zero Configuration Utility" (the regular WLAN tool). Is that also Zeroconf? --Abdull 19:20, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not sure, but I kinda doubt it. Microsoft has a competing discovery protocol - UPnP (universal plug-n-play). Apple did have a downloadable beta of zeroconf for windows, but it seems to have been removed from their site. I think they were planning on releasing it officially later in 2005.

With the name change to "Bonjour" (stupid name for something so cool), Apple has released a 1.0 of "Bonjour for Windows," which can be found at their site.
Corrected link above to new version djm101

[edit] IPstack template?

Question: Why is the IPstack template (the "Internet Protocol Suite" box) on this page? Per the fact that Zeroconf is no longer listed there (if it ever was), I personally think that it should be removed. If the community is against that, I would suggest that Zeroconf be added, but please note that there has been much discussion (read: arguing) about exactly which articles are listed. Anyone have any ideas? I'd hate to remove IPstack if someone had a good reason it should be there.

I agree the IP stack can be removed. (by the way, please don't forget to sign you comments next time!) -- Macfreek 12:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree, since Zeroconf is not a protocol and definitely not a standard part of TCP/IP. -- HarrisX 13:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested Merger

I vote yes. I don't know who suggested merging Multicast DNS into this article, but it's a good suggestion. There's not enough information for its own article. -- HarrisX 13:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Me too (I always wanted to say that, and now I can ;-) ) -- Macfreek 12:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't yet know the details, but I think the article for mdns should be augmented rather than merged. The name "zeroconf" was used for an ietf working group and thus has connotations of signifying IETF standardization, but it seems that the dust hasn't settled yet on whether mdns or LLMNR is likely to be standardized. --NealMcB 16:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NetBIOS

Souldn't NetBIOS be mentioned under the section about Windows? While not a part of zeroconf, it does provide name resolution and some other basic elements of zeroconf-like systems. 212.159.69.172 16:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed move to Zero configuration networking

  • Since this is a description of a "set of techniques" shouldn't the article's name be Zero configuration networking instead of Zeroconf? As the introduction notes, the article is about a set of techniques involving multiple and sometimes competing protocols and technologies. The current name, possibly originating from an IETF working group, is an abbreviation which gives the impression of being the name of a specific product or piece of technology. 72.244.201.28 (talk) 16:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC).