IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Pce] [dnssd] Solicit feedback to draft-wu-pce-dns-pce-discovery-03

"Yi Yang (yiya)" <yiya@cisco.com> Thu, 21 November 2013 02:21 UTC

Return-Path: <yiya@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF6EA1ADED9; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 18:21:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.025
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.025 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.525, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BbJpuLXgv1bz; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 18:21:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-2.cisco.com (alln-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.142.89]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 509151A1F3F; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 18:21:11 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=9313; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1385000465; x=1386210065; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=6ACF6cD0krddzS6rBk412Ce0T0lhaugXeBNiW9X791w=; b=Y7flUXPda41u0J6l/3/zfBD9Je1uLL21ztWInkpvb0wpfeH/Abs0CFNy CQJte+NPAqmQO2K0vSP+p3Z6LdEUUCKCz9/UhHiQPnYGAv3aHDfSpGZJ1 a0x2T+AiKIs9th/fghEMlKKsRngTg7bFHp/MQA2Uc8xbKdUQxlEwjGfK9 I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAHANdtjVKtJV2Z/2dsb2JhbABZgkNEOFO1HIhLgR4WdIIlAQIELT4OEgEIDgMDAQIoORQJCAEBBAENBRuHZg3AY49aEQeEMgOYEoEvkF6BPYFrgio
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,740,1378857600"; d="scan'208,217";a="1099705"
Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by alln-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 21 Nov 2013 02:21:04 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x04.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x04.cisco.com [173.36.12.78]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rAL2L47v008733 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 21 Nov 2013 02:21:04 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x11.cisco.com ([169.254.6.19]) by xhc-aln-x04.cisco.com ([173.36.12.78]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 20:21:03 -0600
From: "Yi Yang (yiya)" <yiya@cisco.com>
To: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>, "dnssd@ietf.org" <dnssd@ietf.org>, "cheshire@apple.com" <cheshire@apple.com>
Thread-Topic: [dnssd] Solicit feedback to draft-wu-pce-dns-pce-discovery-03
Thread-Index: Ac7bfAhe4xbRw6boTAe6OJLJbskmmQK7KwoA
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 02:21:02 +0000
Message-ID: <CEB2CC57.1C3E0%yiya@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA43C37319@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.7.130812
x-originating-ip: [10.116.75.8]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CEB2CC571C3E0yiyaciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 01:29:11 -0800
Cc: "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Pce] [dnssd] Solicit feedback to draft-wu-pce-dns-pce-discovery-03
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Path Computation Element <pce.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pce/>
List-Post: <mailto:pce@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 02:21:14 -0000

Hi Wu Qin,

A couple of comments on the draft:

1. IMO, NAPTR may not be necessary. Instead, a dns-sd based solution should provide pretty much same functions. Please see the attached pic for an example of sequence diagram when dns-sd is used. Please note, while PCC only sends a PTR query for pce service,  the DNS server may sends additional records in it response for efficiency. Please refer to section 12 of RFC 6763 for more details.

2. For TXT record, it seems you split it into multiple records, and put each key/value pair into a different record. This is not necessary. In addition, per RFC 6763, the key should not be more than 9 character long, and no space should be used in key, unless it's really necessary. Also, it's recommended to have a version tag in the TXT record.  (see section 6 of RFC 6763 for more details).  With these in mind, the TXT record in section 7.3 of your draft can be re-written as:

ex2._pce._tcp.example.com: Type TXT, class IN, 0x09 txtvers=1, 0x0e scope=inter-as, 0x1a capability=link constraint, 0x0b domain=as10, 0x10 peerDomain=area1

Yi


From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com<mailto:bill.wu@huawei.com>>
Date: Thursday, November 7, 2013 1:01 AM
To: "dnssd@ietf.org<mailto:dnssd@ietf.org>" <dnssd@ietf.org<mailto:dnssd@ietf.org>>, "cheshire@apple.com<mailto:cheshire@apple.com>" <cheshire@apple.com<mailto:cheshire@apple.com>>
Cc: "pce@ietf.org<mailto:pce@ietf.org>" <pce@ietf.org<mailto:pce@ietf.org>>, Daniel King <daniel@olddog.co.uk<mailto:daniel@olddog.co.uk>>, "julien.meuric@orange.com<mailto:julien.meuric@orange.com>" <julien.meuric@orange.com<mailto:julien.meuric@orange.com>>
Subject: [dnssd] Solicit feedback to draft-wu-pce-dns-pce-discovery-03

Hi,DNSSDers:
The draft-wu-dns-pce-discovery was presented twice in the PCE Working Group since Last Berlin meeting (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wu-pce-dns-pce-discovery-03<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wu-pce-dns-discovery-003> ) and is dealing with DNS based PCE discovery.
Currently the draft almost complete protocol design. For the followup, at the request of PCE WG chair, we like to ask some review from DNS experts in the DNSSD WG
and solicit feedback to this draft.

If you are interested and would like to offer help for review, I will appreciate very much.
Please freely send your comments to either the list or directly to us.

Regards!
-Qin Wu

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email