Re: [dnssd] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-sctl-service-registration-02.txt

Tim Wattenberg <> Mon, 16 July 2018 12:24 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6B06130FFB for <>; Mon, 16 Jul 2018 05:24:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.907
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.907 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 9jjsY0K56DAQ for <>; Mon, 16 Jul 2018 05:24:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::536]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AD235130FFE for <>; Mon, 16 Jul 2018 05:24:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id t3-v6so29812287eds.3 for <>; Mon, 16 Jul 2018 05:24:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=B+2UghJV3wV5ZfuoqSfnHJTMw5gcD2akc2Rb2N00i2Y=; b=fo7E0jqr/TWjrYQ9yKcP/VPYsVKyHuzSTIgfT+8DbGNQ0326XYqw+FOlYsL05WVpcK zYC5QsCcjqZJlu8pAVLPbD4vx3ZhW1R3fAr0Zi2spSbse7bWPomcLP7rIOdAd9M2mR72 kE/H4R7vEwFpN6OfVhJmXDpNo/aSFf6twecD3XOu/IQ7ZTkxn7k/YUxNL98A5wkbJ+FZ dd/IWuJHlaTBM1cnIPrCH5Qy2zaHFc9P55Ymy+DFniPyIxAGKGJxEytIvWuHFleOnobK YA84xP3jmD0zRmZl6pRB68dS8sek1KmQkk/kVLd+djlI0d9Uv0AnpBH6RD0qhpERvH9+ FysA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=B+2UghJV3wV5ZfuoqSfnHJTMw5gcD2akc2Rb2N00i2Y=; b=SBnKZiOo27WohySZqwNLOwl12AFFVOy7GNPNy62o3auS1s6oah6iBN1gURGO8clXwp JdEqeh95tGTXc5pOHxsEbncBFB3KBaZEv9CJsMNKS7AafLFQ9yIbor+IHsLCat88IYRm zE53hzsUJQPGpKxZRfLTNgIDNyChkHuWpi4z+M8K3Iiv2tbrEBpkMqse7tORK6/C6Cuw iTSRIih+UzKtvJIR+t5FMKxdSxkkdmoQN1PA3x7RVZx20kIdn+mfo14F9i1RRpoX24Gh KMzZVcTH2zqWqnyRQCARCrhTZUIooBjT/n1zVgp7V1iF5gDpRxoC+S4rNIIr/b4bZljK LtvA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlEbal8h9xxXRtnBHHYJWgn0OD+4Z4eZP+M2TotzsPtJfMJdLcsW 77s22GAlrm0rYD0Xxr34zqsUs9NTYxm2hI0RVc2N8MzB0/X6oQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpfwyQP4HA/2B8S0NWXqagmx1MIlxY+uQsW1h79mV6hUbSp7VZEUjAWciZJ80i+Mh5OldtJ7CgiwGcwp2NXTHAI=
X-Received: by 2002:a50:c015:: with SMTP id r21-v6mr16895272edb.202.1531743887054; Mon, 16 Jul 2018 05:24:47 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:a50:8266:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Mon, 16 Jul 2018 05:24:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: []
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
From: Tim Wattenberg <>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 14:24:46 +0200
Message-ID: <>
To: =?UTF-8?B?VG9rZSBIw7hpbGFuZC1Kw7hyZ2Vuc2Vu?= <>
Cc: Ted Lemon <>, dnssd <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000466ff305711cead9"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dnssd] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-sctl-service-registration-02.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 12:24:52 -0000


I just read through this conversation and the latest version on GitHub.
I think you made valuable improvements, especially adding some wording on
where the "base-domain" comes from (DHCP/RA).

Going through the draft in detail:
- 2.3.1 first mentions SIG(0), we might want to add a reference to RFC 2931?
- 2.3.2 these server most likely won't support SIG(0) first-come
first-served -- we might want to emphasize this at that point?
- 2.3.3 (similar to 2.3.2) it might be worthwhile to point out, that these
registrations most likely won't be secured
- 2.4 general question: Is SIG(0) first-come first-serve protection
mandatory to be used by a service which registers itself? Might there be
scenario where a service explicitly wants to give other instances the
opportunity to overwrite its service registration?
- for completeness: should we mention the SIG RR?
- 2.4.2 as briefly discussed yesterday: should we mention that the order of
of the update-statements does matter? I mean it's clear if the reader is
familiar with DNS update, but I thinks it doesn't hurt to also point it out
in this draft.
- 2.4.2 (naming issue mentioned by Toke): If I understand correctly, it
should say "A Registration MUST include at least one Service Discovery
update, at least one Service Description update, and exactly one Host
Description update."
- 3. On the security discussion: I agree with you that the standard
behaviour should be limited to the administrative domain -- Tom's use-case
might be subject to an extension.

Thanks, Tim

Tim Wattenberg
+49 1578 8248731