Subject: [dnssd] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-dnssd-requirements-05: (with COMMENT)

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 23:21:07 -0700

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnssd-requirements-05: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnssd-requirements/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm glad to see this moving forward. I have a few minor comments, but
just do the right thing.

I was at at least one BOF where this was discussed, so I kind of knew
what to expect, but I didn't find the title clear. Could the word
"multi-link" be added someplace?

This text:

      It is common practice for enterprises and
      institutions to use wireless links for client access and wired
      networks for server infrastructure, typically on different
      subnets.
      
didn't seem quite right. Is it saying 

      It is common practice for enterprises and
      institutions to use wireless links for client access to wired
                                                           ^^
      networks for server infrastructure, typically on different
      subnets.  
      
? As written, this excludes my office network, which includes both
clients on wired and wireless links, and I suppose that's an environment
where this extension might be useful ...

(an embarrassingly small nit) In this text:

   SSD should support rich internationalized labels within Service
   Instance Names, as DNS-SD/mDNS does today.  SSD must not negatively
   impact the global DNS namespace or infrastructure.
   
the two requirements don't seem particularly related, and I wonder if the
second would get more attention if it was a separate paragraph.

---

From: Kerry Lynn <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 16:40:55 -0400

On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 2:21 AM, Spencer Dawkins <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> <KEL> What it's trying to say is that large networks are typically *not*
one
large bridged collection of wired and wireless links, but I guess we could
sharpen
this up a bit.

> <KEL> They are related to the extent that DNS-SD/mDNS and the global DNS
currently use different namespaces (see my reply to Pete R).

Regards, Kerry Lynn

---

From: Kerry Lynn <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 16:40:55 -0400

one

Regards, Kerry Lynn