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

Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <> Thu, 19 July 2018 16:24 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D484B130E63 for <>; Thu, 19 Jul 2018 09:24:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qlRuk86fu30q for <>; Thu, 19 Jul 2018 09:24:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:dc45:1000::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A1D7130DCB for <>; Thu, 19 Jul 2018 09:24:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: Toke =?utf-8?Q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= <>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; 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 <>, Tom Pusateri <>
Cc: dnssd <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 18:23:53 +0200
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
Message-ID: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dnssd] draft-sctl-service-registration call for adoption
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of extensions to DNS-based service discovery for routed networks." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 16:24:18 -0000

Ted Lemon <> 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 :)