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

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

Robby,
This is a good reference for constrained node, such as IoT.
I will include the definitions of constrained node and IoT in the next
version of my draft.

Thanks.

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 25, 2014 at 1:32 AM, Simpson, Robby (GE Energy Management) <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> When discussing constrained devices (which I think is the intent here), I
> find the definitions from RFC 7228 (
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7228/) convenient.
>
> - Robby
>
> From: Guangqing Deng <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]
> >>
> Date: Monday, November 24, 2014 at 11:26 AM
> To: "Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <[e-mail]<mailto:
> [e-mail]>>
> Cc: "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:
> [e-mail]>>
> Subject: Re: [dnssd] DNS Name Autoconfiguration for Home Network Devices
>
> The term of "IoT device" is mentioned many times here and in the draft,
> and it seems necessary to give a relatively formal defination to it instead
> of only presenting some instances of so called "IoT device". The domain
> name is usually used to uniquely and consistently identify objects and thus
> it is better to keep the domain name unchangeable. If many kinds of
> information of "IoT devices" (such as their locations and categories) are
> inserted into the domain name in some way, whether we should change the
> domain name or not if some kinds of information (like the location) changes?
>
> ________________________________
> Guangqing Deng
> cnnic
>
> From: Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong<mailto:[e-mail]>
> Date: 2014-11-19 12:00
> To: Stuart Cheshire<mailto:[e-mail]>
> CC: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; Myung-Ki Shin<mailto:
> [e-mail]>; Brian Haberman<mailto:[e-mail]>;
> Jung-Soo Park<mailto:[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [dnssd] DNS Name Autoconfiguration for Home Network Devices
> Stuart,
> Thanks for your constructive comments.
>
> As I answered Alf's email message just before,
> I would like to allow IoT vendors to have an alternative way for DNS naming
> with more compact implementation based on IPv6 stateless autoconfiguration.
>
> For the question about how users find out the host names and which
> protocols are used
> were presented with the following slides 4 and 5 during the last dnssd WG
> session in Hawaii:
> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/slides/slides-91-dnssd-6.pdf
>
> To figure out what those devices do, we can use device category and device
> model
> in the DNS name format.
>
> 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 Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 7:46 AM, Stuart Cheshire <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> On 17 Nov, 2014, at 17:33, Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
> > Hi Tom,
> >
> > You are right for appliances with enough capacity to run mDNS.
> >
> > However, for low capacity IoT devices without mDNS, my proposal will be
> able to support an alternative way for DNS naming.
>
> You assert that there are devices with insufficient resources to run
> DNS-SD/mDNS.
>
> You assert that these devices would have sufficient resources to run your
> alternative.
>
> I think you need data to substantiate these claims. Note that devices like
> the SitePlayer Telnet implement DNS-SD/mDNS in under one kilobyte (about
> 850 bytes of code, if I remember correctly): <
> http://netmedia.com/siteplayer/telnet/>
>
> So you need to demonstrate that:
>
> 1. That there are devices where 850 bytes of code is too much.
>
> 2. That these devices can implement your thing in under 850 bytes.
>
> 3. That your thing is useful. I’m still unclear on what your thing is
> useful for. Your proposal says how devices pick host names, but not how
> users find out what those host names are, or find out what those devices
> do, or what protocol to use to communicate with them, and how clients
> resolve those host names to addresses.
>
> Stuart Cheshire
>
> _______________________________________________
> dnssd mailing list
> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnssd
>
>