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, 9 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:
>=20
>>> I think the following reference is Normative the way it is used in =
the
>>> document:
>>>=20
>>>    [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.
>>=20
>> <personal>Oh please not</personal>.
>>=20
>> 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?
>>=20
>> 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.
>=20
> 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. =20

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 =E2=80=94 noting that while core-rd =
is a proper RD service type, core-rd-tls isn=E2=80=99t.  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?

Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten