Re: [mdnsext] Discussion of BoF during Berlin IETF
Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 04 June 2013 15:45 UTC
Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: mdnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mdnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81FAB21F9B56 for <mdnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Jun 2013 08:45:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4O-1fmpCf2uz for <mdnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Jun 2013 08:45:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.252.184]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B38121F8FB3 for <mdnsext@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Jun 2013 06:46:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (desk.marajade.sandelman.ca [209.87.252.247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2166820171 for <mdnsext@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Jun 2013 09:59:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 411E463A8C; Tue, 4 Jun 2013 09:45:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F31663A5E for <mdnsext@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Jun 2013 09:45:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "mdnsext@ietf.org" <mdnsext@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <783F7CF8-7FDB-4F93-82C2-4291E329F844@gmail.com>
References: <14CE323C-0BCC-4B7F-976C-10070E156046@gmail.com> <783F7CF8-7FDB-4F93-82C2-4291E329F844@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.3; nmh 1.3-dev; XEmacs 21.4 (patch 22)
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2013 09:45:31 -0400
Message-ID: <19956.1370353531@sandelman.ca>
Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca
Subject: Re: [mdnsext] Discussion of BoF during Berlin IETF
X-BeenThere: mdnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of extensions to Bonjour \(mDNS and DNS-SD\) for routed networks." <mdnsext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mdnsext>, <mailto:mdnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mdnsext>
List-Post: <mailto:mdnsext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mdnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mdnsext>, <mailto:mdnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2013 15:45:57 -0000
{I have no travel budget to be in Berlin} I think that the BOF proposal is very sane and very well thought out. I question the need for a BOF at this point. I think our set of requirements and goals is very well understood: I think that there is enough material there to charter a WG already. I am pleased that the commercial enterprise networks and the R&E campus network scenarios are broken out. To repeat: a) Commercial enterprise networks ("Fortune500") b) Academic/educational/university campus networks (R&E) 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 (LLN/LWIG) I think that they are very different, and I think that we need to leave the door open to that commercial enterprise networks might be ruled out of bounds for mDNS. That is, it might be that all that we wind up with is a way to signal that mDNS is *not* to be used on a particular network. I do not believe that we have many operators of such networks at IETF meetings to represent their point of view. (I think about the operators of the government networks near me... they have many conflicting requirements, but few clues as to how to put them together) I am unconvinced that (c)HOMENET and (d)LLNs are in the same problem space, but I also have no evidence that they aren't. I think that there is a scaling of complexity problem that we need to deal with here. I am very much sure that (a)Fortune500 and (b)R&E do not share very much in common with (c)/(d), except that the things being plugged into these networks are from the same vendors, and that some of the devices that get plugged in tend to travel among all these various places. I think that 3. To develop a BCP for the coexistence of zeroconf (mDNS) and unicast (global DNS) name services in such multi-link networks, which should include consideration of both the name resolution mechanism and the namespace. may be incomplete or even mis-guided. It's not that mDNS and global DNS *services* or even protocols have difficulties co-existing. They do that just fine. It is a question of them *interacting*. The place where they interact is on the *host*. We are not writing a network protocol! We are creating a clear state machine that a host implements that takes inputs ("replies"/"responses") from existing network protocols and acts in deterministic and user-useful ways. Our documents should not have time-sequence diagrams in it, assuming that we are god and can control the other hosts. Rather, it should have inputs and state changes for a host, and yes, even messages to users and/or applications about what is available. -- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect [ ] mcr@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
- [mdnsext] Discussion of BoF during Berlin IETF Ralph Droms
- Re: [mdnsext] Discussion of BoF during Berlin IETF Ralph Droms
- Re: [mdnsext] Discussion of BoF during Berlin IETF peter van der Stok
- Re: [mdnsext] Discussion of BoF during Berlin IETF Daniel Park
- Re: [mdnsext] Discussion of BoF during Berlin IETF Ralph Droms
- Re: [mdnsext] Discussion of BoF during Berlin IETF Brzozowski, John
- Re: [mdnsext] Discussion of BoF during Berlin IETF Brzozowski, John
- Re: [mdnsext] Discussion of BoF during Berlin IETF Scott Herscher
- Re: [mdnsext] Discussion of BoF during Berlin IETF peter van der Stok
- Re: [mdnsext] Discussion of BoF during Berlin IETF Albrecht, Harald
- Re: [mdnsext] Discussion of BoF during Berlin IETF Mark Townsley
- Re: [mdnsext] Discussion of BoF during Berlin IETF Kerry Lynn
- Re: [mdnsext] Discussion of BoF during Berlin IETF Michael Sweet
- Re: [mdnsext] Discussion of BoF during Berlin IETF peter van der Stok
- Re: [mdnsext] Discussion of BoF during Berlin IETF Brzozowski, John
- Re: [mdnsext] Discussion of BoF during Berlin IETF Brzozowski, John
- Re: [mdnsext] Discussion of BoF during Berlin IETF Michael Richardson
- Re: [mdnsext] Discussion of BoF during Berlin IETF Albrecht, Harald
- Re: [mdnsext] Discussion of BoF during Berlin IETF Michael Richardson
- Re: [mdnsext] Discussion of BoF during Berlin IETF Kerry Lynn
- Re: [mdnsext] Discussion of BoF during Berlin IETF David Farmer
- Re: [mdnsext] Discussion of BoF during Berlin IETF Kerry Lynn
- Re: [mdnsext] Discussion of BoF during Berlin IETF David Farmer
- Re: [mdnsext] Discussion of BoF during Berlin IETF Michael Richardson
- Re: [mdnsext] Discussion of BoF during Berlin IETF Kerry Lynn
- Re: [mdnsext] Discussion of BoF during Berlin IETF Albrecht, Harald
- Re: [mdnsext] Discussion of BoF during Berlin IETF Michael Sweet
- Re: [mdnsext] Discussion of BoF during Berlin IETF Albrecht, Harald
- Re: [mdnsext] Discussion of BoF during Berlin IETF David Farmer
- Re: [mdnsext] Discussion of BoF during Berlin IETF Michael Sweet
- Re: [mdnsext] Discussion of BoF during Berlin IETF Michael Richardson
- Re: [mdnsext] Discussion of BoF during Berlin IETF Kerry Lynn
- Re: [mdnsext] Discussion of BoF during Berlin IETF Michael Richardson