Re: [dnssd] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnssd-requirements-04.txt> (Requirements for Scalable DNS-SD/mDNS Extensions) to Informational RFC

Stuart Cheshire <cheshire@apple.com> Wed, 04 March 2015 01:08 UTC

Return-Path: <cheshire@apple.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DA731A89B5 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 17:08:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.311
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=unavailable
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 Zp2u6KSL40iw for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 17:08:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-in4.apple.com (mail-out4.apple.com [17.151.62.26]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 38A2C1A88E7 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 17:08:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=apple.com; s=mailout2048s; c=relaxed/simple; q=dns/txt; i=@apple.com; t=1425431311; x=2289344911; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-id:To:Cc:MIME-version:Content-type: Content-transfer-encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:In-reply-to:References:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=M6yMWP1GnsHvwQvq2hEXqUAXxuu0bpU8MbVERwwzmcM=; b=PjvUgUjG4QhNkpAMIdfYKB2Pvz2mUBZn0DnpmddPWBTyLu31oOPXt3tNYqTol7qg kO8QBNh+W9+hV2FT3C5rJFdRLipwzcAQKY+RV2nCQG4dPP3a8NKOfUXbUk7iawgm oY5ZQBMKlOYRaVHxIQzxaQrSD5lfzbX1hhPq7y2/d+DF8VjsxNgz8vOXa3nshhIP a8jgsAn1hWBGHL+medFD3gH7UAXg7968zTdwwdXGfto9wt+67+Jiw0E0QKZfZUP/ hZCJxjoiOw4O5J0eO/Z40GIoxTiA4vMLF7JlaiaJW+XF+SqQ9EXc4MTkIz3rOT1c k7uT9r2hDGz01w1LoREpVw==;
Received: from relay3.apple.com (relay3.apple.com [17.128.113.83]) by mail-in4.apple.com (Apple Secure Mail Relay) with SMTP id 68.5A.12706.F0B56F45; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 17:08:31 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: 11973e12-f79d66d0000031a2-74-54f65b0f7414
Received: from kencur (kencur.apple.com [17.151.62.38]) (using TLS with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by relay3.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with SMTP id CC.60.17961.61B56F45; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 17:08:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [17.153.23.83] by kencur.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7.0.5.30.0 64bit (built Oct 22 2013)) with ESMTPSA id <0NKN004TCXU6M450@kencur.apple.com>; Tue, 03 Mar 2015 17:08:31 -0800 (PST)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
MIME-version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\))
Subject: Re: [dnssd] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnssd-requirements-04.txt> (Requirements for Scalable DNS-SD/mDNS Extensions) to Informational RFC
From: Stuart Cheshire <cheshire@apple.com>
In-reply-to: <54F659EE.8000307@umn.edu>
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 17:08:31 -0800
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Message-id: <464FA0B5-367E-4009-A548-6EDBE19E0B7B@apple.com>
References: <20141217201155.19208.95569.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <90A26CE2-87CC-4C8C-BEF9-FDF021C4FE97@iki.fi> <C7F7C7CA-4DD7-4ABE-ADE8-1F663D1017CD@apple.com> <54F659EE.8000307@umn.edu>
To: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6)
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFtrCLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUi2FAYrMsf/S3EYPUuY4v3S2cxWjzbOJ/F gcljyZKfTAGMUVw2Kak5mWWpRfp2CVwZ03buYSu4wlFx5O9l9gbGt2xdjJwcEgImEksuH2CF sMUkLtxbDxTn4hAS2MsocWPZXiaYoouNrewQiSYmicXfz0JVPWCUaDxzCaidg4NZQF1iypRc kAZeAQOJLzuPsoPYwgITGCW+LQkAsdkEtCRefL7CBlLOCVTetiMQJMwioCqxefVLsCOYBbwl pm89wQZha0s8eXeBFWKkjcSe/fcYIdbuZ5T4cOw52HwRAUWJ98dbGUFmSgjIS/RsSoe4+Ser xNpd+hMYhWchHDcLyXGzkGxYwMi8ilEoNzEzRzczz0QvsaAgJ1UvOT93EyMomKfbCe1gPLXK 6hCjAAejEg/vBPavIUKsiWXFlbmHGKU5WJTEedfVfgkREkhPLEnNTk0tSC2KLyrNSS0+xMjE wSnVwGiiuWzarpUnA6apmqmzdSUL/c+3apRK0dZ41BOc36ByU5f56a8HHb3qsbqNG89XPMt3 +CAlmFu18cSJ2ReYt4XwF/Fe+3Rb7vKyQvb7WiH7i9RqDDYe25/k1zDnQGjrwoc/tjFffMOt J8D8Vvjm/JKr7WaxP3MVDhyc4q455WnLrkt2TlOXr1JiKc5INNRiLipOBADT/rBjRwIAAA==
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrBLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUiON1OTVcs+luIwaUJghbvl85itHi2cT6L A5PHkiU/mQIYo7hsUlJzMstSi/TtErgypu3cw1ZwhaPiyN/L7A2Mb9m6GDk5JARMJC42trJD 2GISF+6tB4pzcQgJNDFJLP5+Fsp5wCjReOYSaxcjBwezgLrElCm5IA28AgYSX3YeBWsWFpjA KPFtSQCIzSagJfHi8xU2kHJOoPK2HYEgYRYBVYnNq1+ygtjMAt4S07eeYIOwtSWevLvACjHS RmLP/nuMEGv3M0p8OPYcbL6IgKLE++OtjCAzJQTkJXo2pU9gFJiFcNAsJAfNQjJ1ASPzKkaB otScxEpjvcSCgpxUveT83E2MoPBrKAzewfhnmdUhRgEORiUe3hecX0OEWBPLiitzDzFKcDAr ifA+NvgWIsSbklhZlVqUH19UmpNafIhRmoNFSZz39c4PIUIC6YklqdmpqQWpRTBZJg5OqQbG qM/W+w0l3nXsErmdlatjx7S07tG9v6/Y67tbl54uO+J2WKD897b3NYl/Xaxyk/893bzv98km y/glufXWZQK8PO4T327nuOhRMXe30fwH7FeCn/3cwh4qYi73pvTAt6ZZK59o9D88Z/E7ubrd 7YrPr1KFWokJDK6hcQuv3pMyufCK7eOLzsSVSizFGYmGWsxFxYkAFB06HjsCAAA=
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/4VTf-b_1_32NNvLEG9gR1h80ab0>
Cc: dnssd@ietf.org, Markus Stenberg <markus.stenberg@iki.fi>, ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 01:08:33 -0000

On 3 Mar, 2015, at 17:03, David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> wrote:

> The original wording at least implied some level of interoperability, I'm not sure "leverage and build upon" does that.  It sound more like code reuse is important rather than interoperability.
> 
>    REQ5:   SSD should inter-operate with current link scope
>            DNS-SD/mDNS protocols and deployments to the extent
>            practicable.
> 
> I think my answer to the question is bidirectional would be the best case.  But, remember these are competing requirements to be balanced. So, in the worst case ships-in-the-night meets REQ5 and REQ6.

No, it’s more device reuse than code reuse. You shouldn’t have to buy a new printer to use it with SSD. Or new network cameras, home thermostats, etc.

No it’s not a bidirectional requirement. It’s unidirectional:

A modern client needs to be able to discover a ten-year-old printer even when it’s remote.

The ten-year-old printer doesn’t need to discover anything new.

Stuart Cheshire