Re: [dnssd] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-dnssd-requirements-05: (with COMMENT)

Kerry Lynn <kerlyn@ieee.org> Fri, 13 March 2015 20:40 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: kerlyn2001@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <20150311062107.16301.27032.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <20150311062107.16301.27032.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 16:40:55 -0400
Message-ID: <CABOxzu2Ecpj_PRCBEaGKxNMA5DGe3P7pNOnwy2Pt=Sx+d68Oag@mail.gmail.com>
From: Kerry Lynn <kerlyn@ieee.org>
To: Spencer Dawkins <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11341f5e63cec5051131846a"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnssd/9xpQANcqz0VKm0FlOSXT48rj1Mo>
Cc: draft-ietf-dnssd-requirements.all@ietf.org, dnssd@ietf.org, dnssd-chairs@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: [dnssd] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-dnssd-requirements-05: (with COMMENT)
Precedence: list

On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 2:21 AM, Spencer Dawkins <
spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

> Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-dnssd-requirements-05: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnssd-requirements/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I'm glad to see this moving forward. I have a few minor comments, but
> just do the right thing.
>
> I was at at least one BOF where this was discussed, so I kind of knew
> what to expect, but I didn't find the title clear. Could the word
> "multi-link" be added someplace?
>
> This text:
>
>       It is common practice for enterprises and
>       institutions to use wireless links for client access and wired
>       networks for server infrastructure, typically on different
>       subnets.
>
> didn't seem quite right. Is it saying
>
>       It is common practice for enterprises and
>       institutions to use wireless links for client access to wired
>                                                            ^^
>       networks for server infrastructure, typically on different
>       subnets.
>
> ? As written, this excludes my office network, which includes both
> clients on wired and wireless links, and I suppose that's an environment
> where this extension might be useful ...
>
> <KEL> What it's trying to say is that large networks are typically *not*
one
large bridged collection of wired and wireless links, but I guess we could
sharpen
this up a bit.


> (an embarrassingly small nit) In this text:
>
>    SSD should support rich internationalized labels within Service
>    Instance Names, as DNS-SD/mDNS does today.  SSD must not negatively
>    impact the global DNS namespace or infrastructure.
>
> the two requirements don't seem particularly related, and I wonder if the
> second would get more attention if it was a separate paragraph.
>
> <KEL> They are related to the extent that DNS-SD/mDNS and the global DNS
currently use different namespaces (see my reply to Pete R).

Regards, Kerry Lynn

[dnssd] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ie… Spencer Dawkins
Re: [dnssd] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draf… Kerry Lynn