Re: [dnssd] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-sctl-service-registration-02.txt

Ted Lemon <> Mon, 16 July 2018 21:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DB1F131250 for <>; Mon, 16 Jul 2018 14:20:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.908
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.908 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01, 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 0tQIby_GRNRb for <>; Mon, 16 Jul 2018 14:20:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E19CF131258 for <>; Mon, 16 Jul 2018 14:20:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id q19-v6so39213772ioh.11 for <>; Mon, 16 Jul 2018 14:20:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=e1CU/KR/DOLqDQvvjKTGPbT7Osmtyiyy8UWCxdvmDZc=; b=m7KpKLMPKugXw2cpS/Ojo5tuRq4b9H5XhSUGyRi9nqOUcivNb7oE1pKjhjja3FWjQ2 7DVyVjGU2gOlBDRYu3ric8WuAZZoLv9cTeiUWpcULAq0pgfCYvw8YUu33VbMJ561VllG JlgsFYfdpnT3hZZU2pFPRHJ89ls69kc7GksD0ADyvLczDHZiTEdILF6gV+Gu1t8NwG6r CFXVmU0SuWxidFHb5eN07OCwqJC5YLS12ATzENm/m86N8E6DUCnMq8OpM23bXOhgYi6b hRKICWbju8TkYebzZFiQe4qx7Liu/focpQewKBe+Erpd5ZvWfBoFpfW806pCI5KWgCHK tIMg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=e1CU/KR/DOLqDQvvjKTGPbT7Osmtyiyy8UWCxdvmDZc=; b=b16lE35h6oPXEBnem/ioL8xzI1ptRDnZ46aUVTbvWXWcHYx+HwMjEyMtJZxa/d19eN 8T5tiUKMcwI/wpUoTpKDGAXltZYgsVdT4TKuj7vx7Skr2976P5zqk6V4werOU4O3QCcu oT56FJRwjQVnumFD+0AZxToHA2xCKm79VF1BJqGO4Bx7/k1e9Df9ZWhmumPkg59EQmI+ gH75tkyFOzfyrkni1Q9POFcR1TzmhN1FhD4/QVyv5CZSWtLDba90RAc6qRt2PlwJwvTk DB4L5dVbRGEh6QAXsOGhnQuT6lQQzO6aZlkLl2WbMcaAZv8NCeYEvk2OQSjkBWjOS22I LYAA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlHXR6tJwwBKSiQATOyytpw0MsphlzqXNg53T/5mJHOGmWWPqnVo FhLZbdfARAQOHWRt/S/8gYU5Cqpna0iP/2zd9nMq+buP
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpe7PKgq6jMByirO5cP3I9mud6duyKXWIN13HbfzuJO5kWYyMz2HxC9hEHtpZ8OQ89mre6Bbn0a2TxRgJJwqJ/I=
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:9d0b:: with SMTP id g11-v6mr43015366ioe.85.1531776038043; Mon, 16 Jul 2018 14:20:38 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:a4f:5f86:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Mon, 16 Jul 2018 14:19:57 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
From: Ted Lemon <>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 17:19:57 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: Tim Wattenberg <>
Cc: =?UTF-8?B?VG9rZSBIw7hpbGFuZC1Kw7hyZ2Vuc2Vu?= <>, dnssd <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009f9c3f0571246694"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dnssd] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-sctl-service-registration-02.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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, 16 Jul 2018 21:20:55 -0000

On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 8:24 AM, Tim Wattenberg <>
> I just read through this conversation and the latest version on GitHub.
> I think you made valuable improvements, especially adding some wording on
> where the "base-domain" comes from (DHCP/RA).
> Going through the draft in detail:
> - 2.3.1 first mentions SIG(0), we might want to add a reference to RFC
> 2931?
Done (not yet committed)

> - 2.3.2 these server most likely won't support SIG(0) first-come
> first-served -- we might want to emphasize this at that point?
 I added text.

- 2.3.3 (similar to 2.3.2) it might be worthwhile to point out, that these
> registrations most likely won't be secured

I think this is unnecessary.   In order for such an update to be done, it
would have to be accompanied with whatever authentication the server being
updated requires.

> - 2.4 general question: Is SIG(0) first-come first-serve protection
> mandatory to be used by a service which registers itself? Might there be
> scenario where a service explicitly wants to give other instances the
> opportunity to overwrite its service registration?

I think defining a semantics for this that would not be hugely problematic
is difficult and definitely out of scope for this work.

> - for completeness: should we mention the SIG RR?

What would we say?

> - 2.4.2 as briefly discussed yesterday: should we mention that the order
> of of the update-statements does matter? I mean it's clear if the reader is
> familiar with DNS update, but I thinks it doesn't hurt to also point it out
> in this draft.

I added this:
  Order matters in DNS updates.  Specifically, deletes must precede adds
for records that the deletes
  would affect; otherwise the add will have no effect.</t>

> - 2.4.2 (naming issue mentioned by Toke): If I understand correctly, it
> should say "A Registration MUST include at least one Service Discovery
> update, at least one Service Description update, and exactly one Host
> Description update."

Yes, fixed.