Re: [dnssd] SRP: Name Conflicts Handling

[Kangping Dong <[e-mail]>]

Should we use one RR with ANY type (and zero rdata) for one conflicted
name? Because the conflict applies to all RRs of this name.

Or just pointing to the root?
>
Sorry, I am not following. Do you mean including exactly the original RR
that has name conflict?


BRs,
Kangping

On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 10:30 PM Ted Lemon <[e-mail]> wrote:

> How about including an additional section on the response that includes
> the conflicted names and rrtypes with zero length data? Or just pointing to
> the root?
>
> On Jan 15, 2021, at 01:03, Kangping Dong <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> 
> Hi DNSSD enthusiasts,
>
> For Service Registration Protocol (SRP), when a SRP server receives a
> registration with names
> that have already been taken by another client, it responds with a
> YXDOMAIN error code to indicate
> name conflicts. When the client receives such a response, it typically
> will re-generate a new host or
> service instance name and re-register with the new name.
>
> The problem is that a typical SRP update will include one Host Description
> Instruction and one (or more)
> Service Description Instructions (zero Service Description Instruction is
> allowed but it is more common
> that the client registers the host with some service instances). Name
> conflicts can happen on both Host
> Description instruction and Service Description Instruction, but there is
> no description of how to tell the
> client which instruction includes the conflict (or both include
> conflicts). Currently, the client needs to re-new
> both host name and service instance name or re-new a single name and
> starts a trial-and-error process
> until it finally succeeds.
>
> One solution is, the server/registry responds with the *Instruction(s)* which
> has name conflicts. For the
> client, it should check the RRs in the response to get the conflicting
> name if a YXDOMAIN response
> code is received. To Reduce data transported between the server & client,
> the server may just include
> one RR, but not the entire *Instruction*, that contains the conflicting
> name.
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
> BRs,
> Kangping
>
>