Re: [dnssd] WGLC on draft-ietf-dnssd-mdns-dns-interop-02

Tim Chown <> Sat, 02 April 2016 12:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F180C12D1C0 for <>; Sat, 2 Apr 2016 05:25:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.23
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.23 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0TWpm09roYMV for <>; Sat, 2 Apr 2016 05:25:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E3A5F12D188 for <>; Sat, 2 Apr 2016 05:25:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (localhost []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u32CP5Vu010406 for <>; Sat, 2 Apr 2016 13:25:05 +0100
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.2 u32CP5Vu010406
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple;; s=201304; t=1459599905; bh=aOqrRLOqlZIDwv5sZqClQ37AeWM=; h=From:Mime-Version:Subject:Date:References:To:In-Reply-To; b=ovpQvPTuO+Qm7Tl2BzknVcmXiuX433FFU9ZhpyCuVKlB6xlRgEfjDQmyjbaod0zjl Qet+zH1yQuIdJ98Z18+zQWaj/o1GEUtL9wXFNfP/WDA5pZIyw5SzwadJN3GtPtX1Qo 1Ps7YPfha97gsIxCTDFjIFleVLOVg2XgIkY4rpQY=
Received: from ( [2001:630:d0:f102::25d]) by ( [2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) envelope-from <> with ESMTP (valid=N/A) id s31DP519136060955k ret-id none; Sat, 02 Apr 2016 13:25:05 +0100
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:a88:d510:1101:3506:f7:9c76:f8] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u32COr0Y022688 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <>; Sat, 2 Apr 2016 13:24:54 +0100
From: Tim Chown <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_2EA85F02-EE79-4AD8-B881-F08E98A56CFB"
Message-ID: <EMEW3|7e690cd33b6c76dcc010b72a8c2a5c1cs31DP503tjc||>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\))
Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2016 13:24:45 +0100
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112)
X-ECS-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean
X-smtpf-Report: sid=s31DP5191360609500; tid=s31DP519136060955k; client=relay,ipv6; mail=; rcpt=; nrcpt=1:0; fails=0
X-ECS-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-ECS-MailScanner-ID: u32CP5Vu010406
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dnssd] WGLC on draft-ietf-dnssd-mdns-dns-interop-02
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of extensions to Bonjour \(mDNS and DNS-SD\) for routed networks." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2016 12:25:12 -0000


Ralph and I will take further comments to the list in advance of the dnssd meeting on Monday.

Comments of the form ‘this is ready to ship’ are also very useful.


> On 17 Mar 2016, at 22:39, Tim Chown <> wrote:
> Dear dnssd WG participants,
> We are initiating a WG Last Call today on draft-ietf-dnssd-mdns-dns-interop-02, as can be found at <>.
> The call runs for two weeks, and will thus close on Thursday 31st March.
> Please send any comments (including indications of support for progression of the document as is) to the <> list. This draft will not be advanced for publication unless there is sufficient response and support from the WG.  And, of course, any substantive comments on the draft are strongly encouraged as well. 
> We will discuss the comments arising from the WGLC in the WG meeting in BA on Monday 4th April.
> Abstract
>    Despite its name, DNS-Based Service Discovery can use naming systems
>    other than the Domain Name System when looking for services.
>    Moreover, when it uses the DNS, DNS-Based Service Discovery uses the
>    full capability of DNS, rather than using a subset of available
>    octets.  In order for DNS-SD to be used effectively in environments
>    where multiple different name systems and conventions for their
>    operation are in use, it is important to attend to differences in the
>    underlying technology and operational environment.  This memo
>    presents an outline of the requirements for selection of labels for
>    conventional DNS and other resolution systems when they are expected
>    to interoperate in this manner.
> Thanks,
> Ralph and Tim
> dnssd WG co-chairs