Re: [mdnsext] dnssdext charter

Ralph Droms <> Tue, 27 August 2013 22:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52FF511E80DC for <>; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 15:34:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.6
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id K36hbZVAjv9Q for <>; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 15:34:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::230]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F60111E80D7 for <>; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 15:34:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id ma3so5429742pbc.35 for <>; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 15:34:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=C1lhG+FhLZUg+T/AXMv3FZjTaTuayzm95kM8713sxRE=; b=Vcjaud6UfhoMyHvIRZnwjdKyskEB5og9OgQ48E9ZGfyzl8G8fZwha3uu4lzDXDA5pB 0xrTobN6bWpc9Iyy71YwpDuZCAPboyfoVHWbmmx14c2M7fqoK3/p88wOCJPyge3TtZk9 PULkqO9bdz7UtMWvrRQu0ErBY2/7W51uX3vCNNsDX1JandIeXt5ACVna7xyL3FUOGxbr R+xHn5q6LRiunW+yTuNdEtkNgCBRvpyPo5f0AV+G7/iH21AOReFqoThXJFdb2d5FMpDz q/yKlxkUoW/S2UJ5DbwfftsGpe8oe3Gdcw2ymNySQtSBIePsDf9m7sabuoedvTO0Ju9i DSmw==
X-Received: by with SMTP id ln10mr22860250pab.20.1377642892958; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 15:34:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:420:301:1005:b4d6:8e8a:e628:c41f? ([2001:420:301:1005:b4d6:8e8a:e628:c41f]) by with ESMTPSA id bb1sm26953716pbc.10.1969. (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 27 Aug 2013 15:34:51 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\))
From: Ralph Droms <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 15:34:49 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508)
Subject: Re: [mdnsext] dnssdext charter
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of extensions to Bonjour \(mDNS and DNS-SD\) for routed networks." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 22:34:56 -0000

On Aug 27, 2013, at 1:50 AM 8/27/13, peter van der Stok <> 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.


- 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
>> 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 mailing list