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

["Jan Komissar (jkomissa)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tom,

That sounds better.

And yes for WG adoption.

Regards,

Jan.

On 4/17/17, 2:24 PM, "Tom Pusateri" <[e-mail]> wrote:

    Alternatively, the UNSUBSCRIBE TLV could contain the SUBSCRIBE ID as SSOP-DATA and still have it’s own unique message ID.
    
    Tom
    
    > On Apr 17, 2017, at 8:12 AM, Tom Pusateri <[e-mail]> wrote:
    > 
    > Sorry, Stuart changed this on me. The UNSUBSCRIBE used to contain the record name and type like the subscribe. I was still thinking that it did. I think this is the better approach and will discuss with Stuart. Then you can have unique IDs.
    > 
    > Thanks,
    > Tom
    > 
    > 
    >> On Apr 17, 2017, at 3:04 AM, Jan Komissar (jkomissa) <[e-mail]> wrote:
    >> 
    >> Hi Tom,
    >> 
    >> Does this mean that a client may not unsubscribe a subscription until it has received the response to the subscription request? You may want to clarify that in section 6.4.1 paragraph 4, which explicitly allows an unsubscribe before the subscribe is acknowledged, effectively allowing two messages in flight with the same id at the same time. (Or has there been a protocol change that I missed?)
    >> 
    >> Regards,
    >> 
    >> Jan.
    >> 
    >> On 4/14/17, 11:14 PM, "dnssd on behalf of Tom Pusateri" <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:
    >> 
    >>   Thanks for the review Sara.
    >> 
    >>   The last paragraph of section 6.4.1 needs to be removed. It was left over from previous versions where the message id was 0. We now expect SUBSCRIBE and UNSUBSCRIBE requests (even overlapping ones) to have unique message IDs and will fully conform with RFC 7766.
    >> 
    >>   I’ll add the appropriate references to the profiles draft.
    >> 
    >>   Tom
    >> 
    >>> On Apr 14, 2017, at 7:05 AM, Sara Dickinson <[e-mail]> wrote:
    >>> 
    >>> 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. 
    >>> 
    >>> Sara. 
    >>> 
    >>> 
    >>>> On 6 Apr 2017, at 09:59, Tim Chown <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> wrote:
    >>>>> 
    >>>>> Dear dnssd WG participants,
    >>>>> 
    >>>>> We are initiating a WG Last Call today on draft-ietf-dnssd-push-10, which you can find at https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnssd-push-10
    >>>>> 
    >>>>> 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 [e-mail] 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
    >>>> [e-mail]
    >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnssd
    >>> 
    >>> _______________________________________________
    >>> dnssd mailing list
    >>> [e-mail]
    >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnssd
    >> 
    >>   _______________________________________________
    >>   dnssd mailing list
    >>   [e-mail]
    >>   https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnssd
    >> 
    >> 
    > 
    > _______________________________________________
    > dnssd mailing list
    > [e-mail]
    > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnssd