Re: [dnssd] Second WGLC for draft-ietf-dnssd-srp

[[e-mail]]

The other changes are not urgent, as you say. Good call. So it’s ok with the minor changes per your response below.

 

Thanks,

 

Gabriel

 

From: dnssd <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Ted Lemon
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 22:43
To: g_e_montenegro=[e-mail]
Cc: Nathan Dyck <[e-mail]>; Esko Dijk <[e-mail]>; David Schinazi <[e-mail]>; DNSSD <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [dnssd] Second WGLC for draft-ietf-dnssd-srp

 

Thanks, Gabriel!

Pull request is here:

 

https://github.com/dnssd-wg/draft-ietf-dnssd-srp/pull/new/Gabriel-20220822-01

 

On Aug 21, 2022, at 11:11 PM, g_e_montenegro=[e-mail] <mailto:g_e_montenegro=[e-mail]>  wrote:

Section 1, introduction.

 

DNS-SD is used without first defining it. Suggest this:

 

OLD:

DNS-Based Service Discovery [RFC6763] is a component of Zero Configuration Networking

NEW:

DNS-Based Service Discovery [RFC6763] (DNS-SD) is a component of Zero Configuration Networking

 

The RFC editor would have dinged me for that too, but might as well fix it now. :)





Section 2.1.1:

 

"Hosts that support SRP Updates using TLS use the "_dnssd‑srp‑tls._tcp.<zone>" SRV record instead."

 

Besides the TLS case, any clarification on updates for other DNS-over-foo cases such as for DTLS or QUIC or DNS-over-HTTPS? Privacy section already has references to DNS-over-TLS and DNS-over-DTLS, but nothing on DNS-over-QUIC (rfc9250) yet.

 

This is actually a really significant change, which I don’t think we should do in last call. If the working group is interested in working on this, I think we should just write a document that describes this. I don’t think you’re wrong, mind you. But e.g. the benefit of DNS-over-foo is fairly minimal for IoT devices, and for non-IoT devices there’s no additional privacy gained by any of the other protocols you’ve mentioned. This is not to say that we shouldn’t do it, just to say that it’s not urgent, and we should have a use case in mind. :)





Section 8.1

 

OLD:

IANA is requested, with the approval of IAB

NEW:

IANA is requested, with the approval of IAB (per https://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/2017-2/iab-statement-on-the-registration-of-special-use-names-in-the-arpa-domain/)

 

I don’t want to add this reference—it’s not an RFC. We didn’t do this for previous documents that took advantage of the registry, so I don’t think it’s necessary. Is there a reason you think this is newly necessary in this case?

 

 References:

 

OLD:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-sekar-dns-ul-03

NEW:

https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-dnssd-update-lease-02.html

 

 

Already done—thanks!