Re: [mdnsext] dnssdext charter

[Ralph Droms <[e-mail]>]

On Aug 27, 2013, at 1:50 AM 8/27/13, peter van der Stok <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Ralph,
> 
> I would suggest to keep the 4 scenarios in the charter.

OK.  Keep them as is; no changes?

> 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.

OK.

- Ralph

> 
> 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
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mdnsext
> _______________________________________________
> mdnsext mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mdnsext