Re: [dnssd] Review of draft-ietf-dnssd-hybrid-00

Tom Pusateri <pusateri@bangj.com> Thu, 16 April 2015 23:23 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 A34451B382B for <dnssd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Apr 2015 16:23:21 -0700 (PDT)
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 PpK2IdGBfLcm for <dnssd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Apr 2015 16:23:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oj.bangj.com (amt0.gin.ntt.net [129.250.11.170]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 07BBD1B3825 for <dnssd@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Apr 2015 16:23:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.16.25.123] (69-77-155-151.static.skybest.com [69.77.155.151]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by oj.bangj.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A62C118DE6; Thu, 16 Apr 2015 19:22:34 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_EF731FC1-2602-4A68-BC4B-B0C115181E75"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha256"
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5b6
From: Tom Pusateri <pusateri@bangj.com>
In-Reply-To: <E36F274013087B4EA05E08EB503750390BF6343E@DEFTHW99EK5MSX.ww902.siemens.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 19:23:16 -0400
Message-Id: <C0806BE6-5BCE-488C-BFD0-00BC6D6D3AEB@bangj.com>
References: <D3BDB6F2-C288-4C35-98F0-B545043F9659@bangj.com> <E36F274013087B4EA05E08EB503750390BF6343E@DEFTHW99EK5MSX.ww902.siemens.net>
To: "Albrecht, Harald" <harald.albrecht@siemens.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnssd/eJS-7ZouZVMrX53A53xEzUWnu-M>
Cc: "dnssd@ietf.org" <dnssd@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dnssd] Review of draft-ietf-dnssd-hybrid-00
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: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 23:23:21 -0000

Thanks for the clarification Harald.

For reference, "on-link" for IPv6 is defined in RFC 4861 Section 2.1 and updated by RFC 5942 Section 3.
For IPv4, Section 3.3.1.1 of RFC 1122 calls this a "connected network”.

I think “on-link” may be the right term to use. But it may have to be defined for IPv4.

Tom

> On Apr 13, 2015, at 4:06 AM, Albrecht, Harald <harald.albrecht@siemens.com> wrote:
> 
> Just a minor note, please see below:
> 
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: dnssd [mailto:dnssd-bounces@ietf.org] Im Auftrag von Tom Pusateri
> 
> ++++
> Section 3 1st paragraph
> =======================
> 	After describing in the previous section what is meant by “on the same link”, Section 3 says unicast DNS domain names are assigned to "each physical link”. The word physical should be removed. Another way to say this may to use “each IP subnet” which could be included in section 2 as well.
> ++++
> 
> From the IPv6 perspective I would like to point out that on a given IPv6 link there are typically many IP subnets simultaneously. In my home network connected via broadband to a big TelCo I have four IPv6 subnet simulatenously: first, the obvious fe80::/10 link-local subnet; next, my own internally stable addresses coming from one of the many fd00::/8 ULA subnets; then a global preferred IPv6 subnet; and finally a deprecated IPv6 subnet that is due to the overlapping rolling subnet addresses we get over here with those "All-IP" broadband access.
> 
> So in IPv6 territory we often can see multiple IPv6 subnets bound to the same IPv6 link. Agreed, "physical" doesn't need to apply, as these may be virtual links, such as IEEE 802 VLANs.
> 
> ++++
> Section 5 1st paragraph
> =======================
> 	"For this reason, each physical link may have *two* unrelated ".local." zones, one for IPv4 and one for IPv6.”
> 	The word “physical” is used again here but I would prefer to see IP subnet or just link without the “physical” since you defined what link meant.
> ++++
> 
> I would like to ask for "link" (as in "IPv6 link" as we have a definition for that term in the RFCs) for the reasons outlined above.
> 
> 
> Wit best regards,
> Harald
> 
> Siemens AG
> Gleiwitzer Str. 555
> 90475 Nuernberg, Germany
> 
> Siemens Aktiengesellschaft: Chairman of the Supervisory Board: Gerhard Cromme; Managing Board: Joe Kaeser, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer; Roland Busch, Lisa Davis, Klaus Helmrich, Janina Kugel, Siegfried Russwurm, Ralf P. Thomas; Registered offices: Berlin and Munich, Germany; Commercial registries: Berlin Charlottenburg, HRB 12300, Munich, HRB 6684; WEEE-Reg.-No. DE 23691322
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dnssd mailing list
> dnssd@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnssd