Re: [dnssd] DNS-SD TXT question (for ANIMA use).

Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> Tue, 03 May 2022 23:31 UTC

Return-Path: <eckert@i4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
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 1A161C15E6D3; Tue, 3 May 2022 16:31:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.652
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.652 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.248, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DDxEf5UmqLo6; Tue, 3 May 2022 16:31:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [131.188.34.40]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D7CC4C15E6C5; Tue, 3 May 2022 16:30:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [131.188.34.51]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8FC9F58C4AF; Wed, 4 May 2022 01:30:46 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix, from userid 10463) id 7E6044EADB1; Wed, 4 May 2022 01:30:46 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 04 May 2022 01:30:46 +0200
From: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
To: Stuart Cheshire <cheshire@apple.com>
Cc: "touch@strayalpha.com" <touch@strayalpha.com>, dnssd@ietf.org, anima@ietf.org
Message-ID: <YnG7Jh4TMKNgA9Sw@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
References: <Ym6j/8qhEzvqNw2V@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <BECA0397-5B8B-4DAB-8706-D5727F86F73A@strayalpha.com> <YnFyCwHUSu67Uio7@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <97BE76F7-FA1B-4693-B410-4314C4F56964@apple.com> <YnGE13ujQHIF3uYi@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <BDEB1FD7-BE1F-4284-A183-43E4AE7A3A79@apple.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <BDEB1FD7-BE1F-4284-A183-43E4AE7A3A79@apple.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnssd/4s_P2gkuBrMQjtnkKW8z1sGbbbQ>
Subject: Re: [dnssd] DNS-SD TXT question (for ANIMA use).
X-BeenThere: dnssd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34
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: Tue, 03 May 2022 23:31:14 -0000

Oops, sorry, yes, the service names use -, the . is the coap level discovery naming.
No idea yet, whether there is an actual need for that difference (still getting up to
speed with coap).

On Tue, May 03, 2022 at 03:54:01PM -0700, Stuart Cheshire wrote:
> On 3 May 2022, at 12:39, Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> wrote:
> 
> > The service name would not be CoAP, but e.g.: brski.rjp (service point for boostrapping of
> > key infras). The TXT proto= key would need to be a list of 1 or more protocol variations,
> > if those protocol variations happen to be able to (or need to) operate across the same
> > UDP or TCP port - which is something that could happen for protocols operating on top
> > of COAP or HTTP. For example proto=est-coap,cmp-coap, if we have two coap protocols, such as
> > one based on EST (rfc7030), and one based on CMP, both able to operate across the same
> > COAP (UDP) port. Service is the same, just encoding of transactions and data-structures
> > differs.
> > 
> > Would that be appropriate ?
> 
> You can’t have a dot in the service name, but otherwise this looks good.
> 
> Stuart Cheshire

-- 
---
tte@cs.fau.de