Re: [dnssd] Does draft-ietf-dnssd-srp need more work ?

Ted Lemon <> Thu, 04 April 2024 01:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0A17C151091 for <>; Wed, 3 Apr 2024 18:31:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t0TMy4GEZtKm for <>; Wed, 3 Apr 2024 18:31:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b2d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 89CA5C14F6B9 for <>; Wed, 3 Apr 2024 18:31:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id 3f1490d57ef6-dcc7cdb3a98so519731276.2 for <>; Wed, 03 Apr 2024 18:31:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20230601; t=1712194260; x=1712799060;; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=ci7EBChNNdd4K2CLM1FvPRdQUh4gPtjQlkV1/ZSam90=; b=ko6kkGOPLowzkqBuRB+8b1DdLOht8DabK3uy76Q2a2x2Up43q8rD9f8q7SKPMsQWhK B1dYCB//H9miDPPOfBY6oBAatBnw1tFYeeJwSubPvlKAZXRoPSlgmtKuKWfdd/G0WRTk wawgh+3qe5KWEXvqZl/1lmiH++zf9HmuxB/kmVKdUI8HiNwVrIRjSG98hsKxe+3LueBQ UaFOO+1ocbH75ese3HZHA1MG8RTgmJpq2Hi72bISShOWviquvfXKY3iPi2aAUa1b9+xt k2+9k8dg0XAhjZp7jm1pdhJrSnV9uqVB+u/KuSzSId1UgLGI92UIr3+ziztX0FP9eBfg AtWQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20230601; t=1712194260; x=1712799060; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=ci7EBChNNdd4K2CLM1FvPRdQUh4gPtjQlkV1/ZSam90=; b=jJoey9rwrsdFU5qFNtp9KXyaqk0+UODaZQJiaCn3q9SDWn5r+Qi7lX1QG+JA5/Qt+D ijjyGz2ZU583W/DwXGIlDRa3SeeGUUsXu/Nwgqo7yBBf3HWChOZKSeQewj+fD5X2E0iQ gYBxjjtuncYImFfIiBgDOYVF9cvkvBb/rx0LlA2neEUfh3FxzbqPqfzjC+QHq79xE8Cd ED9gQimq1nh7zeBOg4nGMUXz/GBEX8dROtf+L/vGlLPFDSCp2jcdjgtByOiKWyAemqE1 zBkTQfkbPc3BKjQ5q37QiXt54/sUuMzFLUF2brpRpQZhl7/m7u1tlqwqC8ISiOCbkxxQ GJRg==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCW7BejXGomaUjMi7y4wV8pzTA0NUx7nuDmnjhZVT3BXWVzHLDzLUTyuKFf4pJH08oKRcgcw6osXbpRO7pbX5w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Ywh9Y3Bxkq1n7RIk7OMScBlJpX9NUPnqNIf7cY1fhd6xfCEjwtv 7Tf39ySEmFCxh6f+/6l7HVlz6rqwEb0yLm6Jz16xKxme9oDHqekDVJzSft0Z88Fn0FQjONkzex8 ZFuKSjtNmYfBr4ifek2/0aY90z3/UZeAkQCBgWaNqTThbN9UT
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IE5LfMdsm003hIdTXKaqmuOlHyc2ZMGy6NeVrRIZO5buUeu+589MtwxblvCGJzbXLCxJdC0a0KhlhpXYtzYTUE=
X-Received: by 2002:a25:f50f:0:b0:dd9:2a67:f470 with SMTP id a15-20020a25f50f000000b00dd92a67f470mr1111951ybe.25.1712194260559; Wed, 03 Apr 2024 18:31:00 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Ted Lemon <>
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2024 21:30:49 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <>
Cc: Stuart Cheshire <>, dnssd <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b009fd06153b4a32"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dnssd] Does draft-ietf-dnssd-srp need more work ?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of extensions to DNS-based service discovery for routed networks." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2024 01:31:04 -0000

Where we left it is that Paul is satisfied but I asked if he was concerned
about the open issue with respect to source address validation that
remained from our discussion. He has not responded for two weeks, and the
text as written is sufficient IMO. I think a new doc describing the multi
hop UDP use case would be required anyway, so there’s not much value in
clarifying further in this document.

So unless you want to ping Paul one last time, likely for no benefit, I’d
say we’re ready to go.

Op wo 3 apr 2024 om 17:15 schreef Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <>

> Ted, Stuart, and others,
> Does draft-ietf-dnssd-srp need a further revision before being sent to the
> RFC Editor ? It has now passed the IESG evaluation and is ready to go from
> a process point of view; some minor changes can still be done later at the
> AUTH48 stage, but if there are ‘not-so-minor’ items, let’s do them *
> *before** sending the document to the RFC editor.
> Looking forward to reading your confirmation that SRP is ready to be
> approved,
> -éric