Re: [dnssd] DNS Name Autoconfiguration for Home Network Devices

"Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <> Sat, 15 November 2014 06:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CC901A1A5B for <>; Fri, 14 Nov 2014 22:22:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wdkP1gTHVcsi for <>; Fri, 14 Nov 2014 22:22:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::235]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 767AB1A1A2C for <>; Fri, 14 Nov 2014 22:22:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id l13so2902845iga.14 for <>; Fri, 14 Nov 2014 22:22:41 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=BxeYJwpvNggBTEs+ZIS4FU5D1x8qPOkf5gCXTOvzgYc=; b=tnkLHGIxDYZ4AxQQkbv0QCsaHWvUL1+6fVWwPOJqD0TQshcJN1rMtDmqx5SzA+dwcW fFOiDegJKKYHZ0DUCDMpWXPzXaYyWTKHasQJakocrAdaDSGAgv8QKVTphjT2HFgF1p1l Om7NaW8VDetM5J4nurPAFgUcUnlIEn2kG9F8SbeiKpD9m9FTZluozDvRivY5SgLfzaBd r00vCILKrEz5kDXIO4gvit1hMWR4JziHcdmmhzEKxUdvdL+Dfrr4f3998T6YFPuNOBw4 eZhimhr0t4+hgBUlStV0G0GQqCWeQEL2KOALwrKCgP+DKPMid3HqCeh6VXTztvU4F6M9 OEMg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id ft5mr11218745igd.6.1416032561693; Fri, 14 Nov 2014 22:22:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 14 Nov 2014 22:22:41 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 20:22:41 -1000
Message-ID: <>
From: "Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <>
To: Dave Thaler <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11360240d48c650507dfc5fa
Cc: Brian Haberman <>, Myung-Ki Shin <>, "" <>, Jung-Soo Park <>, Ted Lemon <>, Sejun Lee <>
Subject: Re: [dnssd] DNS Name Autoconfiguration for Home Network Devices
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of extensions to Bonjour \(mDNS and DNS-SD\) for routed networks." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2014 06:22:45 -0000

Thanks for your clarification.

In Page 32 in RFC 6762, there is the recommended course of action after
probing and failing, but
there is no text about a random ID selection.
Anyway, we can perform a random ID selection for the uniqueness of a DNS
name, but
the readability for such a DNS name is not good for the users.

My original intention for DNS name generation is to include device category
(e.g., refrigerator),
device vendor (e.g., Samsung), device model (e.g., RH269LP).
This name itself delivers much information to users and mobile  smart
devices (e.g., smartphone or smart TV)
to represent the device icon visually.

I am not sure this is enough answer for your last question.
If you have more comments, please let me know.


Mr. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Software /
Department of Computer Engineering
Sungkyunkwan University
Office: +82-31-299-4957
Mobile: +82-10-4758-1765
Fax: +82-31-290-5119
CPS Lab Website:
Personal Homepage:

On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Dave Thaler <> wrote:

> Paul wrote:
> > For the regeneration and verification of a unique DNS name under DNS
> name conflict,
> > the solution in RFC 6762 recommends to use an incremental digit (such as
> 2, 3, 4, etc.)
> > by trial and error. In an IoT scenario where there will be many IoT
> devices of the same
> > type, such as light bulb in home or hotel here, this incremental
> numbering approach
> > will be costly and slow to let each IoT device have a unique DNS name,
> ...
> My reading is that RFC 6762 does not _require_ an incremental digit.  You
> can put in
> a random ID or MAC-derived ID or something else highly unlikely to collide.
> As such, it should not be "costly and slow".  Indeed RFC 6762 does not
> specify what
> you have to do.   Would it be possible to recast your draft as
> "how to choose a unique ID and use RFC 6762" ?
> -Dave