Re: [dnssd] Setting device friendly names

One option, by the way, would be to simply pop up some kind of warning if a
two devices come on the network with the same name, and leave it to the
user to fix it (or not).

On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:

> Right, the security model for having "the network" change the device's
> name is wrong.   That doesn't mean it's not a problem that needs to be
> solved.   It may indeed be that there is no point in trying to address it
> in homenet; I would certainly agree that it's not a high priority.   The
> main reason it's of interest at all is for resolving name collisions.
>
> In that sense, we _do_ have a way of making the device change its name--we
> just don't get the opportunity to suggest a new name for it.
>
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 3:48 PM, Alf Watt <alf@istumbler.net> wrote:
>
>> Not have I, which seems suggestive: the feature has at least two proposed
>> methods (UPnP and DHCPv4) and neither has been widely implemented in
>> clients.
>>
>> It appears that clients which the IT staff doesn't already control do not
>> want the network to be able to choose their name. I expect for the
>> usability reasons already discussed: if the name is changed the user will
>> have to learn the new name somehow.
>>
>> One other common method of host name configuration which hasn't come up
>> is configuration profiles, which can automate away having (or allowing) the
>> user to set the host name (or have one generated for them in setup).
>>
>> Best,
>> Alf
>>
>> On Jul 21, 2016, at 6:13 AM, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:
>>
>> I have never seen a host that would accept an unauthenticated hostname
>> update from a DHCP server.
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 3:10 PM, Alf Watt <alf@istumbler.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Don't forget, good ol DHCPv4 provides option 12 for setting host names
>>> by the server:
>>>
>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2132
>>>
>>> Support will depend on the client respecting the option, which at least
>>> some Linux distributions don't seem to out of the box.
>>>
>>> The option wasn't included (even for the more common case of the client
>>> requesting a name from the server) in DHCPv6, which suggests using DDNS for
>>> allowing the host to update the name after auto-configuration.
>>>
>>> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3315.txt
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Alf
>>>
>>> On Jul 21, 2016, at 3:51 AM, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I think the point Barbara is making about consistency is right, and that
>>> we may be in violent agreement. :)
>>>
>>> In general there are devices that you'd like to be able to configure
>>> using the network, and devices that you definitely do not want configured
>>> by the network.
>>>
>>> On Jul 21, 2016 12:31, "Stuart Cheshire" <cheshire@apple.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 21 Jul 2016, at 02:54, STARK, BARBARA H <bs7652@att.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > UPnP SSDP announcements include a friendly name in the SSDP header.
>>>> To me, this is comparable to the instance name in DNS-SD / mDNS. And
>>>> comparable to a NetBIOS name.
>>>>
>>>> Yes. I don’t know any service discovery protocol that *doesn’t* have
>>>> “friendly names”.
>>>>
>>>> The question was about a ubiquitous protocol for *setting* the
>>>> “friendly name” that’s universally supported on (virtually) all devices.
>>>>
>>>> > When I ask my router for a list of hosts on the network, and when I
>>>> ask my BluRay player to show me a list of content sources (UPnP), the lists
>>>> use the same names for devices (because these devices use the same name
>>>> across protocols).
>>>>
>>>> If one computer shares two USB printers on the network, do both shared
>>>> printers have to appear with the same name (the same as the name of the
>>>> computer that’s sharing them)? Restricting services to
>>>> one-instance-per-host is quite limiting.
>>>>
>>>> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6760#section-3.3> Address Services,
>>>> Not Hardware
>>>>
>>>> > Yes, there is also a UPnP Service defined that allows for remotely
>>>> changing the friendly name.
>>>> https://openconnectivity.org/upnp/specifications/friendlyinfoupdate1.
>>>> But this service was only published in 2014 (long, long after the UPnP
>>>> Device Architecture required "friendly name" in SSDP advertisements), it is
>>>> not widely implemented (not mandatory to implement)
>>>>
>>>> Do you personally own *any* device that supports this? I know the
>>>> “standard” exists. My question was how many products actually implement it.
>>>> The world is full of so-called “official standards” that no real-world
>>>> products implement.
>>>>
>>>> > FWIW, UPnP is an ISO/IEC standard.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, a great example: OSI networking.
>>>>
>>>> Stuart Cheshire
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> dnssd mailing list
>>> dnssd@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnssd
>>>
>>>
>>
>