Re: [homenet] I-D ACTION:draft-lemon-homenet-naming-architecture-00.txt

[Markus Stenberg <[e-mail]>]

I have partially browsed through the draft. For the record, I am not big fan of the hybrid solution either as I consider the whole mdns rather ‘loud’ on the link, and hybrid just makes the solution worse by causing the spam to occur across multiple links. It is working solution _given current stuff_ though, which I am not sure can be ignored[1].

So, to comments about some parts of the draft:

Section 2.1: It looks interesting. I like having separate naming and connectivity provider, if we can pry the reverse delegation off the connection providers’ dead hands at any rate.

Section 2.2: I am not sure I like ‘flat’ namespace, as it prevents e.g. DNS-SD records from being associated with the particular namespace (or is this ‘flat’ in some logical sense and not really talking about label sequences?).

Section 2.3: I think public should be separate DNS-SD (+DNS-update) zone with manual opt-in, and not created out of local entries. 

Section 2.4.2: I think adding service registration to DHCP would be a mistake. (Wrong level in typical implementation stack, as it is not really tied to network configuration but instead property of applications; one _could_ do it but I find it non-desirable.)

Section 2.4.3: I would like some sort of ‘claim ownership of record X, allow updating it only if you are owner’ schemed DNS-Update to be the main method. It would also address conflict resolution _given_ single server (hard to do in distributed fashion though; the rest of draft seems to argue for loosely synchronized state while I would assert single master + read-only slaves would work better for this model as the ownership claim would be atomic / race-free)

Section 2.5: Not fan of using just IP address for authentication, instead, see above.

Section 3.6: TOFU is usually better than nothing at least..

Section 4.6: We got some (user) feedback that ULA should be preferred over GUA as GUA can go away, disrupting in-home stuff unneccessarily. (Obviously not mosh user.)

The draft seems like good start at least. 

Disclaimer: I didn’t quite read all of it as I am mostly just browsing through everything going on at the moment (and wondering if I should react to the dnssd WGLCs that already expired while I was on vacation, grumble.)

Cheers,

-Markus

[1] The classic argument ‘for’ hybrid are e.g. historic printers. However, I am pretty sure e.g. first-hop router could proxy-DNSSD-register them to DNS and mDNS could be just let rot in practise. (Later addition: Oh.  Section 2.4.1 covers this to some degree already.)