Re: [dnssd] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnssd-push

Thank you Stuart.

To give working group members time to review this diff and your email, we
are extending this WGLC by a week, until 2019-05-06.

For future reference, you can use rfcdiff with published draft names in the
URL:
https://tools.ietf.org//rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-dnssd-push-16&url2=draft-ietf-dnssd-push-19

Speaking with WG chair hat off, I personally do not see any problem with
these changes and support publication.

Thanks,
David

On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 10:13 PM Stuart Cheshire <cheshire=
40apple.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> On 15 Apr 2019, at 10:07, David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > This email starts another Working Group Last Call (WGLC) for
> draft-ietf-dnssd-push, which will last for two weeks until 2019-04-29. As a
> reminder, this document has already passed WGLC but some slight changes to
> the document warranted another WGLC.
>
> Thank you David.
>
> I have attached an HTML file of the output from <
> https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff> comparing draft-ietf-dnssd-push-16 with
> draft-ietf-dnssd-push-19.
>
> There are a variety of minor textual changes, such as replacing references
> to draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal with references to RFC 8490, now that
> this document is published.
>
> In terms of substantive changes, there are two:
>
> 1. DNS Push Notification RECONFIRM
>
> We realized that there is no useful response to a RECONFIRM request. We
> changed RECONFIRM to be a unidirectional DSO message, and that results in
> the deletion of the entire “RECONFIRM Response” section. This simplifies
> both code, and the document.
>
> 2. DNS Push Notification Updates
>
> Previously, Tom Pusateri and I thought that borrowing the DNS Update
> encoding made sense. That was before DSO (RFC 8490).
>
> When implementing the current specification of DNS Push Notifications over
> DSO, Ted Lemon discovered that it has no way to express the DNS CLASS of
> changes.
>
> We need to address the problem Ted Lemon discovered, and now that DNS Push
> uses DSO TLV encoding instead of traditional DNS messages, the incentive to
> follow strictly the existing DNS Update encoding has disappeared.
>
> To address this issue, we adopted a new, simpler, way of expressing
> changes. It’s broadly similar, but simpler.
>
> Please take a look at these changes and let us know if you see any
> problems.
>
> And if you *don’t* see any problems with these changes, please respond
> saying that too.
>
> Stuart Cheshire
>
> _______________________________________________
> dnssd mailing list
> dnssd@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnssd
>