Re: [netlmm] I-D Action:draft-ietf-netlmm-lma-discovery-05.txt

[jouni korhonen <[e-mail]>]

Dear Behcet,

On Sep 15, 2010, at 10:38 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:

>>>> 
>>>> IETF  can.. but does not have to. I like the current content  of Section 7. 
>> For 
>> 
>>> 
>>>> the record, the 3GPP boat has already sailed. Not much to  do  there.
> 
> 
> Who should take the responsibility for this?

I guess it is the evil telecom companies to blame here for coming up with a solution where they could use existing DNS specifications without even bothering IANA.

> Look back at the mail archive, Julien and Christian pointed at the right 
> direction on DNS discovery long time ago.

I assume you are referring to: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netlmm/current/msg06183.html

We did add the main body of the MN ID based deterministic FQDN selection idea to Section 4 (was earlier Section 5). Since then above guys seem to have been OK, at least that is how I interpreted the silence.

> 
> I have been shouting since then what should be done and having a dialogue des 
> sourds with you and Jonne.

I assume you are referring to: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netlmm/current/msg06468.html

We did follow the suggestion to drop the Section 4 ;) Btw, I still don't understand what is the problem if a MAG behaves as "an ordinary host makes a DNS query". The simpler the better.

> 
> Anyways, DNS discovery is mission not accomplished in this draft.

Go ahead and actually _propose_ text on DNS based discovery that a) does not cause IANA actions and b) aligns with Section 3 (e.g. where the Service Name != RFC2782 _Service).

- Jouni


> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Behcet
> 
> 
> 
>