Re: [dnssd] The DNSSD WG has placed draft-sctl-service-registration in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@toke.dk> Thu, 12 July 2018 21:39 UTC

Return-Path: <toke@toke.dk>
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 DF1FF1311AD for <dnssd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 14:39:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=toke.dk
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 MUjWUJTQzf-l for <dnssd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 14:39:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.toke.dk (mail.toke.dk [52.28.52.200]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D0C691311A7 for <dnssd@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 14:39:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: Toke =?utf-8?Q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= <toke@toke.dk>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=toke.dk; s=20161023; t=1531431559; bh=zFpDbzoTue+/NdSpLiFMbcH9475ETHBK/rYxqgD3Szs=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=coe5yStjoLeT5/AGlTgrCIoU311ph3WncpYxsnh90UBvUAGIQEjbKWYE8CjPUzFu2 2Q5dMCKhHiVjopFhAliuvggOdSfmh6dP1i4H2gqDwXzpvUcpDSlN7fyQxH/HeKSmXy WgXejcJuuOnSw+TCMVxBMgOFETiMbWdL1OyIuf2TKPobUtB8KizX8B2FvromIfmIrY PuSNcARxIL7dPAE2cAGSh0Rm2s9V5O/YPEl75WdmJzKuYqhiuEsUCCh8OsUJgTDWb3 pRxVO7etLDtxxQcWswJihsVL7Fr74syDESNLylXOU024grpAEJmJJw39m0Lk8tBWEb LceV0HEJ04XtQ==
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Cc: David Schinazi <dschinazi@apple.com>, dnssd <dnssd@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAPt1N1kp+bt3bcrH9_V0R+M-_tVTH8GjUCj8vEueT7UDP++TOQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <153064569308.5111.7449468818446130425.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <EB70166C-B64B-4509-909D-76978CA00A36@apple.com> <87lgare65v.fsf@toke.dk> <AC270951-0AA4-45D0-9F1A-83067489BF27@fugue.com> <87in5td3ar.fsf@toke.dk> <A667C059-FEBB-4159-A053-0B7AFE35F5FD@fugue.com> <87r2kbcl3h.fsf@toke.dk> <CAPt1N1=kNRiNLMEkSjMmcG+U5Bg6OACkQTAkO6t1b-rzYnza0w@mail.gmail.com> <87fu0obuua.fsf@toke.dk> <CAPt1N1=ktPp-T8fg17fAaT=FznDytnXr2N3Uz1rUL+En_QOKUA@mail.gmail.com> <874lh4bicx.fsf@toke.dk> <CAPt1N1mLA3knwxW0R9Ayb29Og4hh=y+6X9OaPSZW58noYv-4+A@mail.gmail.com> <871sc8b2n9.fsf@toke.dk> <CAPt1N1=npjQS-AyuxtZ3DGLJw12-MA1NZa633maXbJs98rEHUQ@mail.gmail.com> <87tvp49mb6.fsf@toke.dk> <CAPt1N1kp+bt3bcrH9_V0R+M-_tVTH8GjUCj8vEueT7UDP++TOQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 23:39:18 +0200
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
Message-ID: <87pnzs9lrt.fsf@toke.dk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnssd/F6HMpIoKtphpwRczoyeyYT8chkU>
Subject: Re: [dnssd] The DNSSD WG has placed draft-sctl-service-registration in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"
X-BeenThere: dnssd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 21:39:23 -0000

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> writes:

> Yes, this requires separate registrations for IPv4 and IPv6. I think
> that's okay. What's a bit chancy is that it also means that if you
> have a ULA and a GUA, you have to pick one, or do two updates. As for
> NAT, I think we have to assume that the network is not double-natted.
> If it's a homenet, that will be true. If it's a campus network, that
> will be true. If it's a bunch of crappy routers plugged together, it's
> unlikely that service registration will be available anyway, so we
> don't care. Do you buy that? :)

Heh. For now, probably; by the time this becomes a standard, who knows?
(but surely there will be no more IPv4 by then, right? ;))

My concern is that requiring client address visibility breaks my
deployment use case, where the registration server lives in the cloud...
Or rather, I could probably live without v4, but I wouldn't be surprised
if someone else got the same idea (DNSSD as a service? One could
potentially run a dyndns type service using the same mechanism...).

-Toke