Re: [dnssd] draft-sctl-service-registration call for adoption

[Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <[e-mail]>]

Ted Lemon <[e-mail]> writes:

> Tom, there are a couple of problems with what you've said. First, the
> goal of SRP is actually to provide a general solution for registering
> services to be discovered using DNSSD. It is not for constrained
> devices only, although that is certainly one case where it's valuable.
> So we can't call it a registration protocol only for constrained
> devices.
>
> Secondly, this is DNS Update. It's just that DNS Update without
> something like this *doesn't work* as a registration protocol, and
> we've seen that because DNS-SD over DNS hasn't taken the world by
> storm in the years since it's been published. This specification is
> intended to correct this problem, not to provide a second protocol
> that can be used in a constrained set of cases.
>
> It's true that FCFS doesn't work for all use cases. This specification
> acknowledges that and talks about how to address the problem. We've
> also had discussions about this at the mic. This protocol is however
> the enabling technology required to solve those problems as well.
> Those will be subsets of this, rather than this being a subset of
> those.
>
> So although I understand where you are coming from, I do not agree
> with your analysis of the situation.

As someone whose primary interest in this draft is naming devices across
(logical) admin boundaries, I can only agree with Ted here. This is by
no means just a thing for constrained devices.

Oh, and I do also support adoption of the draft, if that hasn't been
clear from my previous messages :)

-Toke