Re: [dnssd] WGLC on draft-ietf-dnssd-mdns-dns-interop-02

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Fri, 10 June 2016 02:12 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
X-Original-To: dnssd@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnssd@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2DF6128874 for <dnssd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jun 2016 19:12:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 AXOidpoma_NY for <dnssd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jun 2016 19:12:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx2.yitter.info (mx2.yitter.info [50.116.54.116]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2DA712D5BF for <dnssd@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Jun 2016 19:12:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx2.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D861109EC for <dnssd@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Jun 2016 02:12:47 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at crankycanuck.ca
Received: from mx2.yitter.info ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx2.yitter.info [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oTjyb7vjI-tU for <dnssd@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Jun 2016 02:12:46 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mx2.yitter.info (c-73-142-157-135.hsd1.nh.comcast.net [73.142.157.135]) by mx2.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C8F7E105A5 for <dnssd@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Jun 2016 02:12:46 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 22:12:45 -0400
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: dnssd@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20160610021245.GK620@mx2.yitter.info>
References: <E5BEE9A6-3719-4A09-998B-1A583B4D1342@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <1C777AF5-0406-44A2-B2BC-30673E8B5ADB@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <EMEW3|7e690cd33b6c76dcc010b72a8c2a5c1cs31DP503tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|1C777AF5-0406-44A2-B2BC-30673E8B5ADB@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <DM2PR0301MB07175BA40FB7623216DE6FE4A39B0@DM2PR0301MB0717.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <20160403010246.GR30146@mx2.yitter.info>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20160403010246.GR30146@mx2.yitter.info>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnssd/EwSe-2E0fkpA24fTtILrlZY1DXo>
Subject: Re: [dnssd] WGLC on draft-ietf-dnssd-mdns-dns-interop-02
X-BeenThere: dnssd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of extensions to DNS-based service discovery for routed networks." <dnssd.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnssd>, <mailto:dnssd-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 02:12:49 -0000

Hi,

I'm likely to have some time in airports soon, so I want to know what
to do here.  In particular:

On Sat, Apr 02, 2016 at 09:02:46PM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

> Hmm.  I suppose the point is made clearer if the draft says something
> like, "If you are sure that nothing will go past some context -- where
> that context is either the LAN, or the site-network however defined --
> then local conventions prevail.  Otherwise, parts of the domain names
> to be queried … &c."  Is that clearer?

Is this change ok?

> Stuart has asserted strogly -- and I confess I have some sympathy for
> his claim -- that all the use cases involve pick-lists.  If that's
> true, then the "first way" is never going to happen, and the "second
> way" is the only real option.  And you're right that neither is
> actually consistent with 6055.

I still don't know what to do here.  Suggestions?  Just call out that
there's an explicit inconsistency with 6055?

> > seems architecturally bad.   So I think the confusing is perhaps around the term 
> > “DNS-SD implementations” which could use some elaboration, or at least rewording for consistency
> > with RFC 6055.
> 
> I wish I knew what the WG wanted here.  I'm way more than amenable to text.

I need text to address this, or I'll leave it alone.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com