Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-tcpm-undeployed-03.txt> (Moving Outdated TCP Extensions and TCP-related Documents to Historic and Informational Status) to Informational RFC

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

> On Jan 5, 2016, at 5:53 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 16:51:09 -0800, Joe Touch said:
> 
>> This sounds like an opportunity for SGI to shift over to DNS-SD.
>> 
>> We can change the line about "no known" to "only one known". We could
>> refer to DNS-SD going to PS as a rationale for obsoleting TCPMUX if
>> necessary, IMO.
> 
> Not a really good fit. In general, you already *know* the hostname that
> has the service - it's the host you have the NFS mount from, or the current
> CXFS metadata server if you're inside the cluster. And trying to use DNS-SD
> for two logically distinct DMF archives is just *looking* for trouble.

You can use DNS-SD to just find the port number given s known hostname. 

The simplest alternative to that is to get an assigned (user) port number. 

> It would be a much better fit for portmapper actually (although that would
> involve leaving a daemon running to answer/forward queries - probably not as
> big an issue today as it was when they started coding DMF almost 25 years ago).

The forwarding is why import mapper might not be a good fit.

Joe