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

[Tim Wattenberg <[e-mail]>]

Ted,

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?
- 2.4.1.1/2.4.2 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
[e-mail]
[phone]