Re: [mdnsext] dnssdext charter

peter van der Stok <> Tue, 27 August 2013 08:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7D7F21E80B1 for <>; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 01:51:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.154
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.154 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gdh5NV9vMJai for <>; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 01:51:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58C5121E80B7 for <>; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 01:51:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r7R8osYD072956 for <>; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 10:51:03 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from
Received: from ([]) by with HTTP (HTTP/1.1 POST); Tue, 27 Aug 2013 10:50:54 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 10:50:54 +0200
From: peter van der Stok <>
Organization: vanderstok consultancy
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Message-ID: <>
X-Sender: (31r5Gnza2065lXPoWoTFlUEws3PTKMRJ)
User-Agent: XS4ALL Webmail
X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner
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 08:51:09 -0000


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 


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