[mdnsext] dnssdext charter

["Ralph Droms (rdroms)" <[e-mail]>]

I'm revising the draft dnssdext charter according to the discussion during the BoF in Berlin.  One issue that occurs to me that we didn't explicitly discuss during the BoF is the list of the deployment scenarios to be considered by the WG.  The draft charter includes a list of four scenarios:

   a) Commercial enterprise networks
   b) Academic/educational/university campus networks
   c) Multi-link home networks, such as those envisaged by the
      HOMENET WG 
   d) Multi-link/single subnet (mesh) networks, such as those
      described by the ZigBee Alliance Z-IP specification

while draft-lynn-mdnsext-requirements includes a list of six scenarios:

   (A) Personal Area networks, e.g., one laptop and one printer.
   This is the simplest example of an mDNS network. 

   (B) Home networks, consisting of:

   * Single exit router: the network may have multiple upstream
     providers or networks, but all outgoing and incoming trafic goes
     through a single router.

   * One level depth: all links on the network are connected to the
     same default router.

   * Single administrative domain: all nodes under the same admin
     entity.

   (C) Like B but may have a tree of links behind the single exit
   router.  However, the forwarding nodes are almost self-configured
   and do not require routing protocol administrators.

   (D) Enterprise networks, consisting of:

   * Any depth of the forwarding tree, under a single administrative
     domain.  The large majority of the forwarding and security
     devices are configured.

   (E) Higher Education networks, consisting of:

   * Any depth of the forwarding tree, core network under a central
     administrative domain but leaf networks under multiple
     administrative entities.  The large majority of the forwarding
     and security devices are configured.

   (F) Mesh networks such as RPL/6LoWPAN, multi-link but single prefix
   networks.

The list of scenarios from draft-lynn-mdnsext-requirements was the basis for discussion of requirements during the BoF.

We likely need to coordinate the list of requirements in the charter with the list in the draft-lynn-mdnsext-requirements.  The two lists are actually not that far apart; the requirements docs includes (A) which is not in the draft charter, and (B) and (C) could perhaps be combined into one scenario, matching c) from the charter.

I'm looking for consensus about how to proceed:

* Modify the charter to align with draft-lynn-mdnsext-requirements
* Modify draft-lynn-mdnsext-requirements to align with the charter
* Replace the specific list of scenarios from the charter with a pointer to the requirements document
* Modify both draft-lynn-mdnsext-requirements and the charter to bring them into alignment

Note that I'm deferring consideration of specific edits to the scenarios, such as s/tree of links/arbitrary topology/ in (C) from draft-lynn-mdnsext-requirements.

- Ralph