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

Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@toke.dk> Thu, 19 July 2018 16:24 UTC

Return-Path: <toke@toke.dk>
X-Original-To: dnssd@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnssd@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D484B130E63 for <dnssd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Jul 2018 09:24:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=toke.dk
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 qlRuk86fu30q for <dnssd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Jul 2018 09:24:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.toke.dk (mail.toke.dk [IPv6:2001:470:dc45:1000::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A1D7130DCB for <dnssd@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Jul 2018 09:24:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: Toke =?utf-8?Q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= <toke@toke.dk>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=toke.dk; s=20161023; t=1532017447; bh=/QMRgL5iTfZMBeGCfGu60rAuvq+Z5T9eCNugh10bPIE=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=gr565eerqu/JSIsjcLckhIoZ3NX/QABbkdyNDQogQnaTALHizqDDzrQzlkzBOzhmw JljVoNdLc39W9D8FHmoCXSv7LB3VFU4ChdKalW3nMGshJhRI+BxFT5rnnM+yC0LZTo VfLedbT1tHcNj/Wf1pr14Sy+ZB2rWFbNRdG5lj86Lk4+MXnQptXY2ywHpQICi72Nq4 uxat1eFCSZ+LdURCYQaEDxg0ZCIVSafY0wo421piYMRgBgF3UE//2mUBo7XLxsho/O EId81LyH62pUmptm0LlB7cOLNKi/2BsRz+lgVLK9blFWWH/WoPSeIHR+bW6iH4klGX bvZfw2r0Lkm6w==
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>, Tom Pusateri <pusateri@bangj.com>
Cc: dnssd <dnssd@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAPt1N1mg24bD9h6+N7EsBLbo9sDpwyAsN1TnopuZ0eAcdiNw0g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <9CEB602B-87CA-4F5A-A0B9-C514528AB9AD@bangj.com> <CAPt1N1mg24bD9h6+N7EsBLbo9sDpwyAsN1TnopuZ0eAcdiNw0g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 18:23:53 +0200
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
Message-ID: <87y3e719eu.fsf@toke.dk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnssd/0UVEM0fkOCURw9Up4Y2lqNQQl2I>
Subject: Re: [dnssd] draft-sctl-service-registration call for adoption
X-BeenThere: dnssd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of extensions to DNS-based service discovery for routed networks." <dnssd.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnssd>, <mailto:dnssd-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnssd/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnssd@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnssd-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnssd>, <mailto:dnssd-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 16:24:18 -0000

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> 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