Re: [dnssd] Impending Publication of Discovery Proxy RFC

David Schinazi <> Mon, 08 June 2020 19:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C27273A0F4D for <>; Mon, 8 Jun 2020 12:13:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R40EzeRwSO-b for <>; Mon, 8 Jun 2020 12:13:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ACFBB3A0F1D for <>; Mon, 8 Jun 2020 12:12:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id j18so8867636lji.2 for <>; Mon, 08 Jun 2020 12:12:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=LetLWUqti4x6TYA9ohOQOMQdnriHJigilVaPLJC/g5g=; b=QTHxahYWPeRMHalW4St6iOir4pGkTLB8VA1ppym9TOeaMpBqGl7NF/u4vmwjflT+zk Xv76hod/SYhHEUqDjQGgynnr1UD07ArAZi+spS4PKQddjZiCKCewD4qtDwxE934BU3TQ L4QcqiyWtzeAqKccE0OWhClpzDjt/oW1frBJZS6UyhbttmRTLQnFfch6wo38y3KFDx3B NV0+PwNpyT+PJ+nSKmgyTZse3xg7oe89Uy0ogy/GIoNL1qo15jV0v/txNUBRrON68XJH syJte6KpeiQtIqPNpST+dDCGywTI+/wSKr9QhLMwEUpCxeNCOhRA1foODGNEE+HiUTE4 FPVA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=LetLWUqti4x6TYA9ohOQOMQdnriHJigilVaPLJC/g5g=; b=O9R7wBygpX+HQA+k1AD/Sp331L0hWY1ZW5aRFjvKgazgBV+rJfG+h5rfESZguT0V/w ZUZH+rY1X5b8UTYh/6DfJL1wW4yKfUtNI2cI6ny9qc71vWZfRi36nm+jA68LIDXWYsvO djispeeNmvfoY600hpfa+ruttTjDWjWEd/6l4KKEBp6buI+TkaC6Z9P5tjBoOwFuF3gW htzxTR8sf8wXVpBhlYUHJtRsClc4sTW5tkChBEOfKAm+fXQ2QRfx5k7uADgT5nb98MGQ +BvsufFVEzDSmWI63Fh4vCT9HshT7OoBNBwRuSZOa1qXvPy7av+hxp7sRuUTzKpfTe66 YRAA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531DQqsjK4kH95ohNW6AhycQMYcgoXxMaR0fclcT7ocdcpj4rM3c 67fEkrhZQna81dg4SCNouJPW2DqNYq3tGMntonU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwt7tkZTDv8FcOzOjyQTKO7BRsqwhylXlaRTY6wWuxtUgS6+w8IHLtNujNrKdeNTTBEHT9De7P0BmROTC4Aou8=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:92cf:: with SMTP id k15mr11511422ljh.333.1591643575067; Mon, 08 Jun 2020 12:12:55 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: David Schinazi <>
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2020 12:12:44 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: Ted Lemon <>
Cc: "" <>, Stuart Cheshire <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e6a6e805a7976509"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dnssd] Impending Publication of Discovery Proxy RFC
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of extensions to DNS-based service discovery for routed networks." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2020 19:13:05 -0000

Thank you for your reply, Ted.

The chairs have not received any objections at this time,
so we are moving forward with Stuart's proposed change.

Stuart, please proceed with publication.


On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 5:38 PM Ted Lemon <> wrote:

> I am okay with this change.  (This is actually the first time I’ve seen
> it, although I did make that suggestion to Stuart, as he reported.:)
> On May 28, 2020, at 8:32 PM, David Schinazi <>
> wrote:
> Thanks for the update, Stuart!
> I have reviewed the change that Stuart proposes, and I personally
> believe that it is positive and editorial; in other words, I do think this
> change improves the document, and I do not think that this change
> impacts any normative requirements in the document.
> Therefore, I believe that this change does not go against any
> previously established working group consensus, and is acceptable
> at this stage in the process.
> However, as chair, I would like working group members to confirm
> my personal opinion. Please review the change and respond here
> stating whether you believe that the change is positive and
> editorial (as defined above).
> The chairs will collect responses for ten days, and then proceed with
> publication on 2020-06-08 if no objections arise.
> Thanks,
> David
> On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 10:07 PM Stuart Cheshire <cheshire=
>> wrote:
>> We are wrapping up AUTH48 for DNS Push Notifications and Discovery Proxy.
>> In doing my AUTH48 reviews, I read RFC 8499 (DNS Terminology) to make
>> sure I was using DNS terminology correctly. I noticed RFC 8499 criticizes
>> RFC 5731 (EPP Domain Name Mapping) for introducing the terms “subordinate”
>> and “superordinate” but defining them by example rather than defining them
>> explicitly. I realized that the Discovery Proxy RFC text was guilty of the
>> same thing.
>> Various important Discovery Proxy data translations are illustrated by
>> example in different places in the document, and only mentioned obliquely
>> in the “Data Translation” section. In draft-ietf-dnssd-hybrid-10..txt,
>> Section 5.5 begins with the following text:
>> 5.5.  Data Translation
>>    Generating the appropriate Multicast DNS queries involves,
>>    at the very least, translating from the configured DNS domain
>>    (e.g., "Building") on the Unicast DNS side to "local"
>>    on the Multicast DNS side.
>>    Generating the appropriate Unicast DNS responses involves translating
>>    back from "local" to the appropriate configured DNS Unicast domain.
>>    Other beneficial translation and filtering operations are described
>>    below.
>> .....
>> The three uses of the word “appropriate” there encompass quite a lot! The
>> descriptions of the necessary translations are scattered elsewhere in the
>> document, sometimes explicitly, sometimes only by example. The information
>> is there, but you have to read the document attentively to get it all.
>> Others who worked on implementations, like Ted Lemon and Tom Pusateri, were
>> clear on what “appropriate” meant because they were actively involved with
>> the working group throughout. Talking more recently with other
>> implementers, it has become painfully clear that it is not obvious to
>> everyone.
>> Following a suggestion from Ted Lemon, I have pulled from examples that
>> are scattered elsewhere throughout the document, and used them to craft a
>> clearer summary description in this section. Without this new text I fear
>> there is a risk of different implementers making different assumptions,
>> yielding interoperability problems that have to be found and fixed through
>> painful testing and debugging.
>> The more thorough text for this section is attached, both in plain text
>> and HTML form. (I recommend the HTML version because it has the example
>> text nicely formatted in a different font.)
>> Please take a look and check that this new text correctly captures the
>> intent of the document and protocol.
>> Stuart Cheshire
>> _______________________________________________
>> dnssd mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> dnssd mailing list