Re: [dnssd] SRP Update - removing individual services (draft-ietf-dnssd-srp-06)

[Kangping Dong <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ted,

Thanks for creating the 07 draft so quickly! The change overall looks good
to me and I agree we should check the KEY RR rather than the SRV RR.

I have some questions when reading the related sections:

1. in 2.2.5.5.2. Removing some published services
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-dnssd-srp-07.html#section-2.2.5.5.2>,
we have:

> The second alternative is to send a normal SRP update, but as in the first
> alternative,

including a Service Discovery Instruction and a Service Description that
> *delete* the service being removed.

Should the "*delete*" be "*replace*"?

2. What's the use case of supporting multiple TXT RRs?
in section *2.3.1.2. Service Description Instruction
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-dnssd-srp-07.html#name-service-description-instruc>*,
we have:

> zero or more "Add to an RRset" TXT RRs,
>

Are there real use cases that we need more than one TXT RRs? What is the
expected behavior
for the advertising proxy to publish this service with multiple TXT RRs? (I
think DNS-SD requires
a single TXT RR, is it correct?) Should multiple TXT RRs be concatenated to
form a new TXT RR?
If there is no such use case, should we require a single TXT RR? It will be
easier to implement on both
client and server side and consistent with DNS-SD. thoughts?


BRs,
Kangping

On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 8:17 PM Ted Lemon <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Actually, on second thought, maybe the right thing to do is check for the
> KEY RR and not the SRV RR. If the key matches, the delete is okay. If there
> are no records on the name, the delete is okay.
>
> On Dec 19, 2020, at 12:25 AM, Abtin Keshavarzian <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> Does it sound ok?
>
>
>