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

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Sat, 07 March 2020 00:48 UTC

Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
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 C1B3D3A0EAF; Fri, 6 Mar 2020 16:48:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 u60SiSQ-QKMf; Fri, 6 Mar 2020 16:48:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B6403A0EB6; Fri, 6 Mar 2020 16:48:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from kduck.mit.edu ([24.16.140.251]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 0270mCbD029154 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 6 Mar 2020 19:48:14 -0500
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2020 16:48:12 -0800
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com, dnssd@ietf.org, dnssd-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dnssd-prireq@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20200307004812.GG98042@kduck.mit.edu>
References: <158338827200.29413.5100659595596762657@ietfa.amsl.com> <ed58f116-4d44-1112-a60d-34856e59d717@huitema.net> <ac5b9614-6f2a-4a5f-eb0b-b46130d110db@huitema.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <ac5b9614-6f2a-4a5f-eb0b-b46130d110db@huitema.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnssd/7x4Qnq0vLQfodgA8eSg96hfh6RE>
Subject: Re: [dnssd] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnssd-prireq-05: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dnssd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Sat, 07 Mar 2020 00:48:22 -0000

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