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

["Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Robby,
Yes, my intent is to to include semantics (e.g., device category, device
vendor, and device model)
in a standardized fashion into the DNS names of low-capacity IoT devices.

I intend to place machine-interpretable semantics into the actual DNS names
themselves
so that machines can use the DNS name for the identification of other
machines
without additional service discovery through mDNS.

The localization of devices is also possible with the DNS name
because the DNS name can include the location of the device,
as describe in Section 6 (Location-Aware DNS Name Configuration) in my
draft:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jeong-homenet-device-name-autoconf/

Thanks for your good opinion.

Paul

===========================
Mr. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Software /
Department of Computer Engineering
Sungkyunkwan University
Office: [phone]
Mobile: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail], [e-mail]
CPS Lab Website: http://cpslab.skku.edu
Personal Homepage: http://cpslab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php

On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 6:15 AM, Simpson, Robby (GE Energy Management) <
[e-mail]> 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: [phone]
>
> [e-mail]
>
>
> From: "Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <[e-mail]<mailto:
> [e-mail]>>
> Date: Saturday, November 15, 2014 at 1:22 AM
> To: Dave Thaler <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Cc: Brian Haberman <[e-mail]<mailto:
> [e-mail]>>, Myung-Ki Shin <[e-mail]<mailto:
> [e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <
> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Jung-Soo Park <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>, Ted Lemon <[e-mail]<mailto:
> [e-mail]>>, Sejun Lee <[e-mail]<mailto:
> [e-mail]>>
> 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: [phone]
> Mobile: [phone]
> Fax: [phone]
> Email: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>,
> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> 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 <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> 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
>
>