[dnssd] draft-sctl-service-registration call for adoption

Tom Pusateri <pusateri@bangj.com> Thu, 19 July 2018 14:53 UTC

Return-Path: <pusateri@bangj.com>
X-Original-To: dnssd@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnssd@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A19AD129385 for <dnssd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Jul 2018 07:53:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LNBpRLSc7bfD for <dnssd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Jul 2018 07:53:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oj.bangj.com (amt0.gin.ntt.net [129.250.11.170]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AD62C127333 for <dnssd@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Jul 2018 07:53:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-8cf2.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-8cf2.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.140.242]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by oj.bangj.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8E840D82 for <dnssd@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Jul 2018 10:51:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: Tom Pusateri <pusateri@bangj.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
Message-Id: <9CEB602B-87CA-4F5A-A0B9-C514528AB9AD@bangj.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 10:53:11 -0400
To: dnssd <dnssd@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnssd/u9WfuumXu5e-AGnqlyJro5nIdxM>
Subject: [dnssd] draft-sctl-service-registration call for adoption
X-BeenThere: dnssd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of extensions to DNS-based service discovery for routed networks." <dnssd.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnssd>, <mailto:dnssd-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnssd/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnssd@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnssd-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnssd>, <mailto:dnssd-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 14:53:16 -0000

I’ll put this on the mailing list for the benefit of those not at the meeting today.

The document draft-sctl-service-registration is not a general purpose Service Registration Protocol. It has made many compromises to allow registration in a single Update message for constrained devices but there is no encryption or authentication/authorization mechanism that can be used outside an administrative domain.

Since RFC 6763 summarizes in Appendix A:
      Service discovery requires a service registration protocol.
      DNS already has one: DNS Dynamic Update

DNS Dynamic Update is generic and can handle service registration from anywhere under any conditions. But it’s chatty and so there is a need for something that is more efficient for constrained devices.

draft-sctl-service-registration does this by instructing you how to use DNS Dynamic Update is a particular way. It’s a profile of usage.

Therefore, I don’t think we should call this Service Registration Protocol which is a generic name because it isn’t a generic solution. 

I propose “DNS Update Profile for Constrained Services”.

Without a name change, I don’t support adoption of this draft.

Thanks,
Tom