Re: [dnssd] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnssd-prireq-05: (with COMMENT)

[Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]>]

Hi Christian,

On Fri, Mar 06, 2020 at 04:41:47PM -0800, Christian Huitema wrote:
> Ben,
> 
> Thinking about this some more, I think I can propose a minimal edit to
> the section 3.4.2:
> 
>     <t>Creating a discovery protocol that has the desired security
>     properties may result in a design that is not efficient.
>     To perform the necessary operations the protocol may
>     need to send and receive a large number of network packets,
> 
> >>>    or require an inordinate amount of multicast transmissions. <<<
> 
>     This may consume an unreasonable amount of network capacity,
>     particularly problematic when it is a shared wireless spectrum.
>     Further, it may cause an unnecessary level of power consumption
>     which is particularly problematic on battery devices,
>     and may result in the discovery process being slow.</t>
> 
> That is, just a subtle hint, but enough to draw attention on potential
> issues.
> 
> Would that work?

It was a non-blocking comment and I was not sure that any change was
needed, so even "do nothing" would work :)
That said, I do think this strikes a good balance, so thank you.  (Whether
"or" or "and/or" is better is probably a matter of style.)

Thanks,

Ben