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

Hi Tom,
You are right for appliances with enough capacity to run mDNS.
However, for low capacity IoT devices without mDNS,
my proposal will be able to support an alternative way for DNS naming.

Thanks.

Paul

===========================
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
Email: pauljeong@skku.edu, jaehoon.paul@gmail.com
CPS Lab Website: http://cpslab.skku.edu
Personal Homepage: http://cpslab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php

On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Tom Pusateri <pusateri@bangj.com> wrote:

> I agree that overloading the DNS name is the wrong place for this
> information.
>
> So would this be a good use for the device-info Pseudo Service Type TXT
> record?
>
> I haven't been able to find much on "device-info" except for it's
> definition and a short email about it.
>
> But it seems like a TXT record with key/value pairs would be more suitable
> for this type of information.
> If device-info isn't right, then maybe a new service type can be defined
> for this purpose.
>
> http://www.dns-sd.org/servicetypes.html
>
> http://lists.apple.com/archives/bonjour-dev/2011/Jul/msg00016.html
>
> Thanks,
> Tom
>
>
> > On Nov 17, 2014, at 4:15 PM, Simpson, Robby (GE Energy Management) <
> robby.simpson@ge.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Robby
> >
> >
> > Robby Simpson, PhD
> >
> > System Architect
> >
> > GE
> >
> > Digital Energy
> >
> > M: +1 404 219 1851
> >
> > Robby.Simpson@GE.com
> >
> >
> > From: "Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <jaehoon.paul@gmail.com<mailto:
> jaehoon.paul@gmail.com>>
> > Date: Saturday, November 15, 2014 at 1:22 AM
> > To: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com<mailto:dthaler@microsoft.com>>
> > Cc: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net<mailto:
> brian@innovationslab.net>>, Myung-Ki Shin <mkshin@etri.re.kr<mailto:
> mkshin@etri.re.kr>>, "dnssd@ietf.org<mailto:dnssd@ietf.org>" <
> dnssd@ietf.org<mailto:dnssd@ietf.org>>, Jung-Soo Park <pjs@etri.re.kr
> <mailto:pjs@etri.re.kr>>, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com<mailto:
> Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>>, Sejun Lee <prosejun14@gmail.com<mailto:
> prosejun14@gmail.com>>
> > Subject: Re: [dnssd] DNS Name Autoconfiguration for Home Network Devices
> >
> > Dave,
> > 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.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > ===========================
> > 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
> > Email: pauljeong@skku.edu<mailto:pauljeong@skku.edu>,
> jaehoon.paul@gmail.com<mailto:jaehoon.paul@gmail.com>
> > CPS Lab Website: http://cpslab.skku.edu
> > Personal Homepage: http://cpslab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com
> <mailto:dthaler@microsoft.com>> 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" ?
> >
> > -Dave
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > dnssd mailing list
> > dnssd@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnssd
>
>