IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dnssd] LF comments on a new document

"Aggarwal, Ashutosh" <aaggarwa@qce.qualcomm.com> Tue, 15 July 2014 20:00 UTC

Return-Path: <aaggarwa@qce.qualcomm.com>
X-Original-To: dnssd@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnssd@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5214F1A0069 for <dnssd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 13:00:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.95
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.95 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] autolearn=ham
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 BrXX3lFFPC4Q for <dnssd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 13:00:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wolverine01.qualcomm.com (wolverine01.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.254]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B26D1A0066 for <dnssd@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 13:00:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qce.qualcomm.com; i=@qce.qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1405454445; x=1436990445; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=wxiIIRUuZ6lbASPAy3k3IyRBT+lz6pz0CwR3OqKeBK4=; b=LG+gkYlkRsrZNQDbbPlbZ6Dr6LWFJVjk2gTvC34wICtzC36aovGSNifg bnISyKtma0oV1fHqr6SXo0v34RD5bes7MTTf8hbZGOtgsBl4Cie2ya2mj ecc7R5muh3VyV5Vczy2nCMWxm2zb/eAy749nUwo16FgbprsBwg3cZgdZJ I=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5600,1067,7500"; a="51927539"
Received: from ironmsg03-r.qualcomm.com ([172.30.46.17]) by wolverine01.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 15 Jul 2014 13:00:44 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.01,667,1400050800"; d="scan'208,217";a="713530247"
Received: from nasanexhc02.na.qualcomm.com ([10.46.56.110]) by Ironmsg03-R.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 15 Jul 2014 13:00:27 -0700
Received: from NASANEXD02B.na.qualcomm.com ([169.254.2.117]) by NASANEXHC02.na.qualcomm.com ([10.46.56.110]) with mapi id 14.03.0181.006; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 13:00:26 -0700
From: "Aggarwal, Ashutosh" <aaggarwa@qce.qualcomm.com>
To: Guangqing Deng <dengguangqing@cnnic.cn>
Thread-Topic: [dnssd] LF comments on a new document
Thread-Index: Ac+buSKBjw6KylVcT8y7xxWlLWNetgEH16bmACOAeFA=
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 20:00:24 +0000
Message-ID: <4ADFCA4A44B18946883BA96F64773E0150E2037A@NASANEXD02B.na.qualcomm.com>
References: <4ADFCA4A44B18946883BA96F64773E0150E101EB@NASANEXD02B.na.qualcomm.com> <201407151057089455024@cnnic.cn>
In-Reply-To: <201407151057089455024@cnnic.cn>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [172.30.48.1]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4ADFCA4A44B18946883BA96F64773E0150E2037ANASANEXD02Bnaqu_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnssd/AUoXJP7Q9q0APgczYkpWHMZi3U8
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 08:57:31 -0700
Cc: dnssd <dnssd@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dnssd] LF comments on a new document
X-BeenThere: dnssd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of extensions to Bonjour \(mDNS and DNS-SD\) for routed networks." <dnssd.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnssd>, <mailto:dnssd-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 20:00:47 -0000

Thanks for your comment. Yes, the specification of keys (mandatory and optional) should be within the service protocol specification. As far as DNS-SD is concerned, TXT records should abide by the size limitations as specified in the RFC 6763. The proposed contribution (in section 3) suggests how multiple keys within a TXT record and multiple TXT records should be interpreted logically.

Ashutosh

From: Guangqing Deng [mailto:dengguangqing@cnnic.cn]
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 7:57 PM
To: Aggarwal, Ashutosh
Cc: dnssd
Subject: Re: [dnssd] LF comments on a new document

Since the number of so called key/values may be very large and not all of them contain rich information for narrowing down search context, it seems that we should further specify which key/values are mandatory and which are just optional.

________________________________
Guangqing Deng
CNNIC

From: Aggarwal, Ashutosh<mailto:aaggarwa@qce.qualcomm.com>
Date: 2014-07-10 05:02
To: dnssd@ietf.org<mailto:dnssd@ietf.org>
CC: Resnick, Pete<mailto:presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>
Subject: [dnssd] LF comments on a new document
Dear members,

I have submitted a new draft document proposing an optimization to the DNS-SD query mechanism to make it more scalable. I have been in discussions with Dave Thaler during the formulation of the draft and would like to request for comments from the community.

Abstract:
DNS-SD allows a client to find a list of named instances of a service
 name over a particular transport within a domain of interest using
 standard DNS queries.  As the number of potential responders
 increases, DNS-SD based discovery doesn't scale well.  To mitigate
 the scaling issues, schemes to narrow down the search context would
 be needed.  The document proposes to include key/value pairs in the
 form of a DNS TXT record along with the service name in the DNS query
 to assist with the discovery process.  The DNS TXT record can be
 placed in the additional section of the query without requiring any
 changes to the structure of DNS messages.

Link to the document:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-aggarwal-dnssd-optimize-query/

Thanks,
Ashutosh

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email