Re: [dnssd] draft-sullivan-dnssd-mdns-dns-interop-00

[Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]>]

Doug,

On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 09:53:20PM -0800, Douglas Otis wrote:
> 
> Disagree.  A globally resolvable label in DNS might not satisfy
> applications expecting to discover local services. 

But a significant part of the _reason_ we started this WG was because
the services aren't actually local.  They're on-campus, but they're
not in a link-local context.  So far, there are exactly two contexts:
link-local and not.  You seem to be proposing something further, but
if so I really don't know what it is.  It'd be nice to get a pointer.

> up resolvers.  In addition, U-labels complying with RFC5198 will not
> ensure valid A-Labels 

There is no such thing as a U-label that does not generate an A-label,
and conversely.  This is a property of U-labels and A-labels.  If what
you're talking about is a non-U-label string that is nevertheless a
valid string using 5198, please say that.
 
> A user may not be helped who expects local services that resolve
> elsewhere.  There should be a preference for .local.

You do realise, right, that users never see ".local." on anything? 
 
> Trill is able to transparently bridge multicast traffic by encapsulating packets in a manner that protects against routing loops.
> 

Ok.  So, you are saying that DNS-SD has to be used onlt with mDNS?
That seems contrary to the specification.  Also, it's contrary to
deployed practice.  For instance, printers at IETF meetings are
discoverable using DNS-SD in the global DNS.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[e-mail]