Re: [dnssd] WGLC on draft-ietf-dnssd-push-10 (extended to 14th April)

Sara Dickinson <> Fri, 14 April 2017 17:05 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB83D129516 for <>; Fri, 14 Apr 2017 10:05:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oBmWSZrqO85x for <>; Fri, 14 Apr 2017 10:05:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1098:0:82:1000:0:2:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0773C12946C for <>; Fri, 14 Apr 2017 10:05:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (port=22112 helo=[]) by with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1cz4et-0001mY-FI for; Fri, 14 Apr 2017 18:05:21 +0100
From: Sara Dickinson <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 18:05:14 +0100
References: <> <>
To: "" <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: -28
X-Mythic-Debug: State = no_sa; Score =
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dnssd] WGLC on draft-ietf-dnssd-push-10 (extended to 14th April)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of extensions to DNS-based service discovery for routed networks." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 17:05:25 -0000

HI All, 

This draft looks in very good shape to me. I have a couple of minor comments:

- I think there could be a reference to RFC7858 at the end of the second paragraph in Section 4.

- Section 6.4.1 discusses clients having 2 messages in flight with the same MESSAGE ID (SUBSCRIBE and UNSUBSCRIBE). This is a valid use case in this context but it does conflict with the statement in RFC7766 “When sending multiple queries over a TCP connection, clients MUST NOT reuse the DNS Message ID of an in-flight query on that connection in order to avoid Message ID collisions. “. I think it would be helpful to point out this exception and in fact I think that means this draft technically updates RFC7766?

- Section 7 - I think it would help if there was a reference to draft-ietf-dprive-dtls-and-tls-profiles - the discussion of server authentication here overlaps with that draft. Also a reference to  section 9 of draft-ietf-dprive-dtls-and-tls-profiles could be used instead of sections 7.3 and 7.4 as that document already makes recommendations about following RFC7525, TLS Session resumption and similar. 


> On 6 Apr 2017, at 09:59, Tim Chown <> wrote:
> Hi,
> We have had no comments on this WGLC.
> In order to progress the draft to our AD/IESG we need some positive expressions of support; please do try to find some time to read and comment on the document.
> We’ll extend the WGLC until next Friday, 14th April, given we are also waiting on a WGLC for the DNS session signalling draft used by DNS Push.
> Many thanks,
> Tim & Ralph
>> On 21 Mar 2017, at 11:24, Tim Chown <> wrote:
>> Dear dnssd WG participants,
>> We are initiating a WG Last Call today on draft-ietf-dnssd-push-10, which you can find at
>> The call runs for two weeks, and will thus close on Tuesday 4th April.
>> Please send any comments, which includes indications of support for progression of the document as is, to the list.  Such statements of support are important; this draft will not be advanced for publication unless there is sufficient response and support from the WG.  
>> There will be a brief opportunity to also make comments in the dnssd WG meeting in Chicago next week, but the chairs would appreciate a record of comments to the list.
>> We are expecting the associated DNS session signalling draft to also go through WGLC in the dnsop WG in the next couple of weeks, with the aim of both documents being published together.
>> The DNS-SD Discovery Proxy (formerly the DNS-SD Hybrid Proxy), which Stuart has updated to reflect the new nomenclature, will be sent to the IESG once the shepherd write-up is completed.
>> Best wishes,
>> Ralph and Tim
>> dnssd WG co-chairs
> _______________________________________________
> dnssd mailing list