Re: [dnssd] DNS Name Autoconfiguration for Home Network Devices

"Simpson, Robby (GE Energy Management)" <> Mon, 17 November 2014 21:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 028581ACCD8 for <>; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 13:16:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.266
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.266 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ucRzeLNsuZNE for <>; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 13:16:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 407041AC428 for <>; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 13:15:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd ( []) by (8.14.7/8.14.7) with SMTP id sAHLFMbv010735 for <>; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 16:15:38 -0500
Received: from ( [] (may be forged)) by with ESMTP id 1qqqjt01g1-18 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for <>; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 16:15:37 -0500
Received: from unknown (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/AES256-SHA; 17 Nov 2014 16:16:24 -0500
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 16:15:27 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 16:15:27 -0500
From: "Simpson, Robby (GE Energy Management)" <>
To: "Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <>, Dave Thaler <>
Thread-Topic: [dnssd] DNS Name Autoconfiguration for Home Network Devices
Thread-Index: AQHP//BdQI7OPQKTmku9cohwx5eWnZxg2XGAgAAf7YCAAAcrAIAAjIaAgAPKQ4A=
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 21:15:26 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.13.68, 1.0.28, 0.0.0000 definitions=2014-11-17_03:2014-11-15,2014-11-17,1970-01-01 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=7.0.1-1402240000 definitions=main-1411170168
Cc: Brian Haberman <>, Myung-Ki Shin <>, "" <>, Jung-Soo Park <>, Ted Lemon <>, Sejun Lee <>
Subject: Re: [dnssd] DNS Name Autoconfiguration for Home Network Devices
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of extensions to Bonjour \(mDNS and DNS-SD\) for routed networks." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 21:16:52 -0000

It seems to me that part of your intent is to include semantics (e.g., device category, device vendor, device model) in a standardized fashion into the DNS name.

On the other hand, while we often apply semantics to DNS names currently for human readers, these semantics typically are not standardized for machines.  For that, we have DNS-SD.

As an example from the IoT space, we use both mDNS and DNS-SD for SEP 2.0 (IEEE 2030.5).  While the DNS names often reflect aspects such as device manufacturer and category, these are not meant to be machine interpretable in SEP 2.0.  Rather, we use DNS-SD to advertise various functionality that is machine interpretable.

Perhaps I am misinterpreting, but is your intent to place machine-interpretable semantics into the actual DNS names themselves?


Robby Simpson, PhD

System Architect


Digital Energy

M: +1 404 219 1851

From: "Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <<>>
Date: Saturday, November 15, 2014 at 1:22 AM
To: Dave Thaler <<>>
Cc: Brian Haberman <<>>, Myung-Ki Shin <<>>, "<>" <<>>, Jung-Soo Park <<>>, Ted Lemon <<>>, Sejun Lee <<>>
Subject: Re: [dnssd] DNS Name Autoconfiguration for Home Network Devices

Thanks for your clarification.

In Page 32 in RFC 6762, there is the recommended course of action after probing and failing, but
there is no text about a random ID selection.
Anyway, we can perform a random ID selection for the uniqueness of a DNS name, but
the readability for such a DNS name is not good for the users.

My original intention for DNS name generation is to include device category (e.g., refrigerator),
device vendor (e.g., Samsung), device model (e.g., RH269LP).
This name itself delivers much information to users and mobile  smart devices (e.g., smartphone or smart TV)
to represent the device icon visually.

I am not sure this is enough answer for your last question.
If you have more comments, please let me know.


Mr. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Software /
Department of Computer Engineering
Sungkyunkwan University
Office: +82-31-299-4957
Mobile: +82-10-4758-1765
Fax: +82-31-290-5119
CPS Lab Website:
Personal Homepage:

On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Dave Thaler <<>> wrote:
Paul wrote:
> For the regeneration and verification of a unique DNS name under DNS name conflict,
> the solution in RFC 6762 recommends to use an incremental digit (such as 2, 3, 4, etc.)
> by trial and error. In an IoT scenario where there will be many IoT devices of the same
> type, such as light bulb in home or hotel here, this incremental numbering approach
> will be costly and slow to let each IoT device have a unique DNS name, ...

My reading is that RFC 6762 does not _require_ an incremental digit.  You can put in
a random ID or MAC-derived ID or something else highly unlikely to collide.
As such, it should not be "costly and slow".  Indeed RFC 6762 does not specify what
you have to do.   Would it be possible to recast your draft as
"how to choose a unique ID and use RFC 6762" ?