[homenet] Naming requirements

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Mon, 17 July 2017 16:03 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Original-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5CBE12711E for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Jul 2017 09:03:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 v5sWhAF21uPV for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Jul 2017 09:03:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf0-x232.google.com (mail-pf0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C2F46131C71 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Jul 2017 09:03:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf0-x232.google.com with SMTP id q86so78548531pfl.3 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Jul 2017 09:03:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=pt9FPotKiV1Q0Gf30Mk9PduBGMWY0FDiNBWdjtuFKdk=; b=0hn7GpH8zYagUcSASudMflaT1TbVPnDE6CS9KFrtOYud/6w/BQqAEsc6ouaeHCVwYj a2GW0hE2nM7kUjsGVZLwXWRGECtl9TpqDJ1Ejf1kJ9hcqxP/mkMNF0i3URF7NTJilR1V P1Qz156EiN6qXCbmOBLScCxFLiC1TsdnK4uwiz+G7mU1Mbp6fjekgVSZQJ7/QI2kG8Vl iKIbXnG8EH3doSYCdjEEpx8+csN86McmV6w/36jXoi1lMtHum+PoOD48Wd54NeO8GNPe sCCXjeDvxPsGte2P56wkdCMJwtPFG/qQhQxj7VZaQJr1wCo5MBhHvODuBdkOFUvvoTxu 1SiQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=pt9FPotKiV1Q0Gf30Mk9PduBGMWY0FDiNBWdjtuFKdk=; b=gQ30SKgyiXzMrpPt12xaNuUmPdBUyC3B2GaVdnb5aFujdIM5P0c8eshhtNvbGDZNOk bopfzTBlhv6eCauDETqp3de4BQz6SCHqAwEibJu2mtj4HXAyDoV05hk4KnE1t/dFRCD/ uZt7W5rT5VFrPENCdLUL3vrYPEU3Avm6wl5Mtj9VFMDCZ/gNlpH+KgP4ohVeyLxa/jCL NWuHj57WYIHslBhU/S4W9CI+gqjD/xK+rPfL4ZWCflogAPjh6bPcVs5LFn1rriJOmBWr 6ba7MTPiMBia3X1Rtfx04ooOe5dRdV+4OOg/S3F5fQ7uoeRIUJttUo4I82mqtrwEtu1l LnHg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw112uWuT0fJhXHpNQQMLKuYNxEJUvVZ/NjrwVpOJJc8x7dzDZ908F YxK890TwfuSoHvfbzVLnlKOmqheI7CiL
X-Received: by 10.98.10.68 with SMTP id s65mr1496742pfi.55.1500307434179; Mon, 17 Jul 2017 09:03:54 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.100.181.42 with HTTP; Mon, 17 Jul 2017 09:03:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2017 18:03:13 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPt1N1=JiBmGKNPokMum-=ErX6DoAo_FTqcRC12TEvy3S2-dhQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: HOMENET <homenet@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11459fbaab28df0554858bfa"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/fjMTXf-NHDUKJCi5vr7QdIwihG4>
Subject: [homenet] Naming requirements
X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Homenet WG mailing list <homenet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/homenet/>
List-Post: <mailto:homenet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2017 16:03:59 -0000

Julian asked me to write this up, so I'm sending a note with what I think
the requirements are:

1. It should be possible for hosts on the homenet to resolve names
2. It should be possible that if the homenet is multi-homed, a host that is
capable of supporting provisioning domains (RFC7556) is able to treat a
particular ISP's prefix and resolvers as being in a different provisioning
domain than another ISP's prefix and resolvers.
3. For hosts that do not support multiple provisioning domains, it should
be the case that the homenet only presents a single provisioning domain to
them (we can treat the homenet provisioning domain and one of the ISP
provisioning domains as a single provisioning domain for the sake of this
statement).
4. It should be possible for hosts on any link on the homenet to discover
services on that or any other link on the homenet
5. Full support for existing uses of service discovery (e.g., Apple's Sleep
Proxy) should exist
6. It should be possible for an HNR that has greater capabilities (e.g. the
advanced homenet naming architecture) to be elected as the default resolver
for the homenet, so that all hosts on the homenet have access to the
improved features of that HNR
7. Not all HNRs should be required to support the advanced homenet naming
architecture.
8. Possibly it should be possible to have a low-cost HNR that cannot act as
an HNR in support of the simple homenet naming architecture without there
being a fully-capable HNR on the network (IOW, an HNR that supports
Discovery Relay but not Discovery Proxy).

I don't know that the entire working group agrees on this set of
requirements, but it's my best attempt to dump my internal state on the
topic.   It's quite possible that I've failed to report one of these
internalized requirements, of course.