Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal-10.txt> (DNS Stateful Operations) to Proposed Standard

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

The BCP14 keyword compliance question sounds like a worthwhile exercise,
but I can't do it this week.   I'm certainly not deliberately violating the
specification.   As to what implementation it is, it's a modification to
the mDNSResponder code base to support mDNS queries over the mDNS relay
protocol.   I suppose "interoperating" was the wrong choice of words—I have
two different services talking to each other: one is a Discovery Relay, and
the other is a Discovery Proxy.   I'd really like to get some other
implementation to test against—are you volunteering?   :)

On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 7:28 AM, Job Snijders <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Dear Ted,
>
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 3:09 PM, Ted Lemon <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > Yes.   I'm using it right now to implement draft-ietf-dnssd-mdns-relay,
> and
> > that implementation is working and interoperating.   I don't know of
> another
> > independent implementation yet, unfortunately.
>
> Can you elaborate a bit more? What is the name of the implementation?
> This is an implementation in progress? I don't fully understand how
> there can be interoperating if there is no other implementation.
>
> I see roughly 150 (!) BCP14  keywords in this draft. Can you specify
> for your implementation for each of these normative keywords whether
> your implementation is complaint, or not, and if not why not?
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Job
>