Re: [mdnsext] dnssdext charter

Hi,

just my two cents: I’m also under the impression that github is kind of too-big tool. I was thinking along the lines of a wiki system; is there one that the IETF operates for such purposes? It would give the opportunity to see the change history and multiple people may work on it simultaneously; similar to github but geared more towards texts. However, if there is no wiki then github surely is a good solution as it is readily available.

-- Harald

With best regards,
Harald Albrecht

Siemens AG
Industry Sector
Industry Automation Division
Industrial Automation Systems
I IA AS CTO DH 1
Gleiwitzer Str. 555
90475 Nuernberg, Germany
Tel: +49 911 895-3847
Fax: +49 911 895-2105
mailto:harald.albrecht@siemens.com

Siemens Aktiengesellschaft: Chairman of the Supervisory Board: Gerhard Cromme; Managing Board: Joe Kaeser, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer; Roland Busch, Brigitte Ederer, Klaus Helmrich, Barbara Kux, Hermann Requardt, Siegfried Russwurm, Peter Y. Solmssen, Michael Suess; Registered offices: Berlin and Munich, Germany; Commercial registries: Berlin Charlottenburg, HRB 12300, Munich, HRB 6684; WEEE-Reg.-No. DE 23691322

Von: mdnsext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mdnsext-bounces@ietf.org] Im Auftrag von Ralph Droms
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 28. August 2013 00:42
An: Kerry Lynn
Cc: mdnsext@ietf.org; consultancy@vanderstok.org
Betreff: Re: [mdnsext] dnssdext charter

On Aug 27, 2013, at 5:05 AM 8/27/13, Kerry Lynn <kerlyn@ieee.org<mailto:kerlyn@ieee.org>> wrote:

> Ralph,
>
> First, I'd propose that we put the proposed charter version(s) on github as
> Carsten has done: https://github.com/6lo/charter.  Would you like me to do
> that this evening?

Although I think github is more mechanism than we need, I can't find a good alternative for posting a current charter so, yes, please put the proposed charter on github.  I've attached the initial draft charter from the BoF request and a revised charter with additional WG logistical info.

>
> Second, I believe the charter must include the base case that was added
> in the last draft to make it explicit that any solution MUST NOT strand the
> millions of mDNS servers (printers and the like) that have already been
> deployed.
>
> I agree with Peter that we probably don't need to include multiple homenet
> scenarios in the charter, especially since we have no requirements from that
> WG yet.
>
> I would propose that we order the scenarios according to administrative
> complexity, from base case to enterprise.  (It will be interesting to define the
> differences of enterprise dnssdext vs. fully managed DNS-SD.)

Please send text with a concrete proposal?

>
> Lastly, are we set on the designation "dnssdext", and will it be in the Apps
> area?

As far as I know, we're going with dnssdext.  Other suggestions can be considered.  I expect it will be in INT area.

- Ralph

>
> Regards, -K-
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 4:50 AM, peter van der Stok <stokcons@xs4all.nl<mailto:stokcons@xs4all.nl>> wrote:
> Ralph,
>
> I would suggest to keep the 4 scenarios in the charter.
> In the draft lynn-mdnsnext-requirements a mapping from req scenarios to charter scenarios can be done.
> Remembering the discussions during the Bof, the req doc. may end up with more scenarios than its current 6.
> Possibly they can be classified and then mapped to the 4 charter scenarios.
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> Ralph Droms (rdroms) schreef op 2013-08-26 19:07:
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> mdnsext mailing list
> mdnsext@ietf.org<mailto:mdnsext@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mdnsext
> _______________________________________________
> mdnsext mailing list
> mdnsext@ietf.org<mailto:mdnsext@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mdnsext
>
> _______________________________________________
> mdnsext mailing list
> mdnsext@ietf.org<mailto:mdnsext@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mdnsext
_______________________________________________
mdnsext mailing list
mdnsext@ietf.org<mailto:mdnsext@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mdnsext