Re: [dnssd] Pete Resnick's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnssd-requirements-05: (with DISCUSS)

[Pete Resnick <[e-mail]>]

  On 3/13/15 5:49 PM, Kerry Lynn wrote:

>>         On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Pete Resnick
>>         <[e-mail]
>>         <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>>             OLD
>>                Devices on different links may have the same mDNS name
>>             (perhaps due
>>                to vendor defaults), because link-local mDNS names are
>>             only
>>                guaranteed to be unique on a per-link basis.  Also,
>>             even devices that
>>                are on the same link may have similar-looking names,
>>             such as one
>>                device with the name "Bill" and another device using
>>             the similar-
>>                looking name "Bi11" (using the digit "1" in place of
>>             the letter "l").
>>                This may lead to a local label disambiguation problem
>>             between
>>                presented results.
>>
>>                SSD should support rich internationalized labels
>>             within Service
>>                Instance Names, as DNS-SD/mDNS does today.  SSD must
>>             not negatively
>>                impact the global DNS namespace or infrastructure.
>>
>>             NEW
>>                Devices on different links may have the same mDNS name
>>             (perhaps due
>>                to vendor defaults), because link-local mDNS names are
>>             only
>>                guaranteed to be unique on a per-link basis. SSD needs
>>             to deal with
>>                name collisions beyond local link considerations.
>>
>>                SSD should support rich internationalized labels
>>             within Service
>>                Instance Names, as DNS-SD/mDNS does today and should
>>             look to work in
>>                using internationalize strings in application protocols
>>                [soon-to-be-RFC-draft-ietf-precis-framework].  SSD
>>             must not
>>                negatively impact the global DNS namespace or
>>             infrastructure.
>>
>
> I don't have a problem with deleting that sentence and patching the 
> prose as necessary.
> Hopefully the chairs and AD will agree.  Are you OK with something like:
>
> NEW
>
>    Devices on different links may have the same mDNS name (perhaps
>    due to vendor defaults), because link-local mDNS names are only
>    guaranteed to be unique on a per-link basis. This may lead to a local
>    label disambiguation problem when results are aggregated (e.g. for
>    presentation).

Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

> I have more of an issue with the insertion of PRECIS at this late 
> date.  Insofar as that draft
> and this one have a common co-author, I think it is reasonable to 
> assume that it will receive
> full consideration during the solution phase.

I'm not about to hold up the document over that. I think you ought to 
put it in as a reminder to consider the IETF technology that has been 
worked on to deal with the issue, but enough folks will certainly remind 
you later if you forget when it comes time to work on the protocol. :-)

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - [phone]