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

Tom Pusateri <pusateri@bangj.com> Mon, 17 November 2014 23:09 UTC

Return-Path: <pusateri@bangj.com>
X-Original-To: dnssd@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnssd@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D7191ACE6F for <dnssd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 15:09:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.038
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.038 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NjXqj1mKOH_0 for <dnssd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 15:09:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from oj.bangj.com (amt0.gin.ntt.net [129.250.11.170]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 257021ACE67 for <dnssd@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 15:09:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.16.10.140] (gw.mountain2sea.com [71.70.135.90]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by oj.bangj.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 48A0C181E; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 18:06:23 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.0 \(1990.1\))
From: Tom Pusateri <pusateri@bangj.com>
In-Reply-To: <D08FC56A.3C9AF%Robby.Simpson@GE.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 18:09:12 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <42C3C87F-0D99-47CB-B50A-9107BD10A2E6@bangj.com>
References: <CAPK2DeyuABqSbH5dtdtScYWnE-vkmGO642xFb6FZehu-5MTaAA@mail.gmail.com> <436692B4-978D-4E62-868E-78FA8AF3F26F@nominum.com> <CAPK2Deys6VU83R0hfv_8svNKuaSBEfu_dGqnGkoN_pQ9zE_6HQ@mail.gmail.com> <cc9f90afaa7a48bdaf7a8906546571b5@BY2PR03MB412.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CAPK2Dex=hR5HE-BFtvbMzgadfcu-4CPgP8zd1sziNPCQNJ+aCw@mail.gmail.com> <D08FC56A.3C9AF%Robby.Simpson@GE.com>
To: "Simpson, Robby (GE Energy Management)" <robby.simpson@ge.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1990.1)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnssd/ZBji6Ewv1G1NC0CLKA7VtNmo0Sw
Cc: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>, Myung-Ki Shin <mkshin@etri.re.kr>, "dnssd@ietf.org" <dnssd@ietf.org>, Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>, Jung-Soo Park <pjs@etri.re.kr>, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>, Sejun Lee <prosejun14@gmail.com>, "Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <jaehoon.paul@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [dnssd] DNS Name Autoconfiguration for Home Network Devices
X-BeenThere: dnssd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of extensions to Bonjour \(mDNS and DNS-SD\) for routed networks." <dnssd.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnssd>, <mailto:dnssd-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnssd/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnssd@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnssd-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnssd>, <mailto:dnssd-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 23:09:16 -0000

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