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

["Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <[e-mail]>]

Ted,
I agree that mDNS with 850 bytes in binary does not require so much in
memory.
However, every engineer for IoT devices must implement much more source
code than 850 bytes for
a simple DNS name autoconfiguration.
On the other hand, my proposal will require much less source code than
mDNS,
allowing the engineers to make less efforts.
This is my point.

Paul

===========================
Mr. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Software /
Department of Computer Engineering
Sungkyunkwan University
Office: [phone]
Mobile: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail], [e-mail]
CPS Lab Website: http://cpslab.skku.edu
Personal Homepage: http://cpslab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php

On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Ted Lemon <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Nov 24, 2014, at 8:01 PM, Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> > In order to lead the early deployment of IoT into the reality,
> > a simple light DNS naming approach with only IPv6 stateless
> autoconfiguration
> > will be beneficial for LLN IoT devices while the mDNS approach is used
> for appliances
> > and computers in home networks.
>
> You have said this numerous times.   However, in order to get IETF
> consensus on some work you want to do, you need to do more than say what
> work you want to do.   You also have to convince some IETF working group to
> adopt the work you want to do.   Stuart Cheshire gave you a pretty good
> summary of what you need to do to convince the working group that this work
> is worth doing.
>
> Can you please read what Stuart wrote and try to do as he asked?   Please
> understand that if you can't show that your solution is so much smaller
> than an mDNS implementation that it makes sense to do it, there is no
> chance that this working group, or any other working group in the IETF,
> will agree to take on the work you propose to do, as you propose to do it.
>
> "As you propose to do it" is really important, though.   If there is some
> problem you have that is not addressed by existing mDNS standards or by
> standards currently being contemplated by this working group, then you
> should try to explain how that problem is different from the problems mDNS
> already solves.   In that case, even if the working group doesn't agree to
> work on your specific solution to the problem, we may decide that the
> problem you want to solve is important, and may therefore agree to work on
> a solution to that problem.
>
>