[core] DNS-SD service types for CoRE-RD (Re: AD review of draft-ietf-core-resource-directory-23)

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Mon, 09 December 2019 20:34 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB83A12029C for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Dec 2019 12:34:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6R7PgG560GSU for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Dec 2019 12:34:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 987F0120236 for <core@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Dec 2019 12:34:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.217.116] (p548DC893.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.141.200.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 47Ww0P6ccgz161X; Mon, 9 Dec 2019 21:34:29 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <c29e70d4-7d81-4c89-ad81-62a6132fb3df@www.fastmail.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2019 21:34:29 +0100
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 597616467.379476-1f3ca5a01adab1022a2e48d03fdf9a13
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <4C059F03-BB42-498D-9B75-A08BEA274416@tzi.org>
References: <481f9820-bcea-af6a-d5c4-d713be24d43d@isode.com> <20191119125733.GA8007@hephaistos.amsuess.com> <c29e70d4-7d81-4c89-ad81-62a6132fb3df@www.fastmail.com>
To: "core@ietf.org" <core@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/h2rExjjm1MZjMN6GAMChaRe1B8I>
Subject: [core] DNS-SD service types for CoRE-RD (Re: AD review of draft-ietf-core-resource-directory-23)
X-BeenThere: core@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Constrained RESTful Environments \(CoRE\) Working Group list" <core.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/core/>
List-Post: <mailto:core@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2019 20:34:34 -0000

On Nov 20, 2019, at 03:03, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> wrote:
> 
>>> I think the following reference is Normative the way it is used in the
>>> document:
>>> 
>>>    [I-D.ietf-core-rd-dns-sd] Stok, P., Koster, M., and C. Amsuess, "CoRE
>>> Resource Directory: DNS-SD mapping", draft-ietf-core-rd-dns-sd-05 (work in
>>> progress), July 2019.
>> 
>> <personal>Oh please not</personal>.
>> 
>> I suppose this is due to "The use of DNS facilities is described in
>> [rd-dns-sd]" being listed as a recommended way, or are there more
>> aspects to it?
>> 
>> The DNS-SD component has been holding RD back quite a bit, so if it's that
>> recommendation, I assume the group might want to reconsider recommending
>> that mechanism for discovering the RD.
> 
> The WG started to discuss whether this is truly normative. I am awaiting conclusion of this discussion.

The outcome in discussion in the Friday meeting was that the resource-directory specification should simply define the small number of DNS-SD service types that are needed for resource directory discovery.  

We said details were to be taken to the list, which I want to initiate now.

In the meeting, I gave the three examples _core-rd._udp, _core-rd-tls._udp, and _core-rd._tcp — noting that while core-rd is a proper RD service type, core-rd-tls isn’t.  To cover the six transports we have for CoAP today (coap, coaps, coap+tcp, coaps+tcp, coap+ws, coaps+ws), we would need four service types on top of _tcp and could use two of them over _udp?

Grüße, Carsten