From stpeter@stpeter.im Mon Mar 4 10:38:40 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: aggsrv@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: aggsrv@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CF0B21F8E49 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 10:38:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100, WEIRD_PORT=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xDebWl-m2v7V for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 10:38:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E15321F8DB9 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 10:38:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.129.24.65] (unknown [128.107.239.234]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7EA794004E for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 11:46:40 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <5134EA25.4050306@stpeter.im> Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2013 11:38:29 -0700 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130216 Thunderbird/17.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: aggsrv@ietf.org X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Aggsrv] draft BoF agenda X-BeenThere: aggsrv@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Aggregated Service Discovery \(aggsrv\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2013 18:38:40 -0000 Here is a draft agenda for the BoF in Atlanta. I've uploaded this to the datatracker, as well. /psa ======================================================================== Aggregated Service Discovery BoF Agenda, IETF 86, Orlando Chair: Peter Saint-Andre Date: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 Time: 09:00-10:20 Eastern Standard Time Place: Caribe Royale, Caribbean 1 Mail: mailto:aggsrv@ietf.org Chat: xmpp:aggsrv@jabber.ietf.org?join Audio: http://ietf86streaming.dnsalias.net/ietf/ietf863.m3u Slides: To Follow Notes: http://etherpad.tools.ietf.org:9001/p/notes-ietf-86-aggsrv Meetecho: N/A Schedule: 1. Intro (09:00-09:05, 5 minutes) - Chair a. Note Well b. Logistics c. Progress to date d. Goals for the meeting e. Agenda bashing 2. Problem Statement (09:05-09:15, 10 minutes) - Andrew Biggs 3. Aspects of the Solution Space (09:15-09:35, 20 minutes) a. Possible Document Format (09:15-09:25, 10 minutes) - Cyrus Daboo https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-daboo-aggregated-service-discovery/ b. Relationship to WebFinger (09:25-09:35, 10 minutes) - Paul Jones https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jones-appsawg-webfinger/ 4. Charter Discussion (09:35-10:00, 25 minutes) - moderated by Chair https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/aggsrv/current/msg00002.html a. Problem statement b. Objectives c. Deliverables d. Milestones 5. Questions to be answered (10:00-10:20, 20 minutes) - moderated by Chair a. Is there a problem that needs solving? b. Is the problem well defined and understood? c. Is there agreement on what a WG would need to deliver? d. Are there people willing to do the work? i. Writing drafts / code ii. Reviewing drafts / code iii. Implementing / testing / characterizing / other e. Would a WG have a reasonable probability of success? ======================================================================== From stpeter@stpeter.im Sat Mar 9 10:40:49 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: aggsrv@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: aggsrv@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 683D621F870C for ; Sat, 9 Mar 2013 10:40:49 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h6eSdSfW5cHi for ; Sat, 9 Mar 2013 10:40:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 416AB21F8714 for ; Sat, 9 Mar 2013 10:40:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.6] (unknown [71.237.13.154]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AEBD84004E for ; Sat, 9 Mar 2013 11:49:08 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <513B822C.4020400@stpeter.im> Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2013 11:40:44 -0700 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130216 Thunderbird/17.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: aggsrv@ietf.org X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Aggsrv] BoF agenda and slides X-BeenThere: aggsrv@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Aggregated Service Discovery \(aggsrv\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2013 18:40:49 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Folks, the final agenda and slides are available for the Aggregated Service Discovery BoF at IETF 86 next Tuesday. https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/86/agenda/agenda-86-aggsrv https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/86/materials.html#wg-aggsrv Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJRO4IrAAoJEOoGpJErxa2pe68P/RuAn6Y5pL8PB2QGxhUM3CYR 6iyu4ENI2xg+2cb2y4vBe5WJUBZCeWHb8x53roKwgMLdTSu+C0yptsRdzjoRJ1cz QkC6ZKmJRz6wa/RHHw5bNg/tcCNv/vrpaGwYlTUX7xy+VQ8IomNVcaldnX1GXbnU Ck6v18f1cWJn8U3toW7vn5w5AcONx2d3p1ddpMSwkqkbOuHTvax0QOFnyBQAqP50 IMuKXMHtuYRO3xHO3X3Cz1aDvtVHnHUgiKKna99PrZq4kdvk/6PCBPSm52FKwqOY GmFw5bYruz01wISY7y9jw19/uLpT+QxWo3RVDDB1cr1irdsFPQRJw9RfsGUJGYEZ P7gHPBOxB+EsC3wD69cYPx4ufEYgcLvoiOP/v0wLDpuqM5EuuxeoBxGQVoapD/ql mLJqDefiSQ+mmZT5Pore76T4HAzBC2a7B5BFXNDcAmcwfTtqJcP7uMKrHDyKZxX8 0tG3iauN7c/N+ahiGjGBz4z4p/iBFxFxRsGwmT8krYtPTcJnWubqItdVSdYZ5oxB eJ/f1yMFNBIVAF8MIS3gCJKoGKwA44T0UV4BJ0CBVWkqrne/7nqsenTVwWdGUuNf iMaZ0ddz7+pJkQBPSmpqr7Xo9t6r/LiGZ4vhnx+J9oPOPj8IYkXnGpEGeklqhhXn 5x8aXo1uK/HoOkYHxLWA =q2mk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From presnick@qti.qualcomm.com Mon Mar 11 10:34:39 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: aggsrv@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: aggsrv@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 555A821F8C68 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 10:34:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -107.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-107.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gn87mN08XYtC for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 10:34:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wolverine01.qualcomm.com (wolverine01.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.254]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 248FD21F8C69 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 10:34:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qti.qualcomm.com; i=@qti.qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1363023278; x=1394559278; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject: content-transfer-encoding; bh=EG0N+x5hIBkmueNakjykF1KMtzpHGWI9Mrx73iYY4Fw=; b=avM0bTC1815oX4Je2iTXkBVhc1u497l8aWCcWh0nU5OC1VWEBx5vytQO krVuCp8bxuid3s+/D2kNpTRMjfR8Jdx2/hy3oIXTNu63xaCIJQ5s8ck+S 2zGcK9bNlvdlYE4A8+Y4dBWB9XvI2Nwy9KKAGoz8m2wj+KcZ+7qqHL/ba I=; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,825,1355126400"; d="scan'208";a="28489888" Received: from ironmsg03-r.qualcomm.com ([172.30.46.17]) by wolverine01.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 11 Mar 2013 10:34:30 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,825,1355126400"; d="scan'208";a="449791532" Received: from nasanexhc08.na.qualcomm.com ([172.30.39.7]) by Ironmsg03-R.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 11 Mar 2013 10:34:30 -0700 Received: from dhcp-103d.meeting.ietf.org (172.30.39.5) by qcmail1.qualcomm.com (172.30.39.7) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.318.4; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 10:32:47 -0700 Message-ID: <513E153D.1080607@qti.qualcomm.com> Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 13:32:45 -0400 From: Pete Resnick User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100630 Eudora/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [172.30.39.5] Subject: [Aggsrv] Possible agenda bash X-BeenThere: aggsrv@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Aggregated Service Discovery \(aggsrv\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 17:34:39 -0000 I should have said more about this earlier: There was *extensive* discussion during our BOF approval call between the IESG and IAB regarding why this BOF was proposing new protocol rather than using existing things (examples given -- whatever their real applicability -- were DNS-SD and DHCP). There's nothing in the current agenda or the presentations that attempt to address this. I think we probably need to deal with this directly. Do folks think it is reasonable to not only be prepared for these questions (with specific attention to why DNS-SD and DHCP are or are not appropriate to this problem area) but also to maybe have a slide mentioning it? pr -- Pete Resnick Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478 From paulej@packetizer.com Mon Mar 11 10:40:14 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: aggsrv@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: aggsrv@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89DFD11E8115 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 10:40:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.264 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.264 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_TAG_BALANCE_HEAD=1.334] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0qI2CmejfwJU for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 10:40:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dublin.packetizer.com (dublin.packetizer.com [75.101.130.125]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C48F711E810E for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 10:40:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhcp-15f5.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-15f5.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.21.245]) (authenticated bits=0) by dublin.packetizer.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r2BHeCks013462 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 11 Mar 2013 13:40:12 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=packetizer.com; s=dublin; t=1363023613; bh=GoJy0VlhUb7rBPpqQ1l03mLxa+a8SDpF6ek3iKLfQiw=; h=In-Reply-To:References:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Subject:From: Date:To:Message-ID; b=VvZi6a0bp/NdMV3hB4HT5JJkPU6kbZ5l1ILOFyPdhPnhKHWAYpQ4oH5R3Xo0nnwHz FIJ8r7s3phi8tyZeP6miA9Cl+yqZB7s0TPZsEATaGUSA7jxWq25ONWhFgNI8MTyTIS ynkr1Pi7F1BESTfb4Um/BaMTLUo4fSVZDpGfxQ+0= User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: <513E153D.1080607@qti.qualcomm.com> References: <513E153D.1080607@qti.qualcomm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----QVLKPE607YM38O42JHIXBWZ8I6XUJZ" From: "Paul E. Jones" Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 13:40:09 -0400 To: Pete Resnick , aggsrv@ietf.org Message-ID: <69f1ac25-6d62-4e22-bb3d-aa7ee1ab8772@email.android.com> Subject: Re: [Aggsrv] Possible agenda bash X-BeenThere: aggsrv@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Aggregated Service Discovery \(aggsrv\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 17:40:14 -0000 ------QVLKPE607YM38O42JHIXBWZ8I6XUJZ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Pete, Yes, I think it's a valid point. When I read the draft, it reminded me of our dialog on WebFinger. There are clear similarities. Andrew intends to touch on all of these options in his presentation. I intend to talk about how we could use WF. Paul -------- Original Message -------- From: Pete Resnick Sent: Mon Mar 11 13:32:45 EDT 2013 To: aggsrv@ietf.org Subject: [Aggsrv] Possible agenda bash I should have said more about this earlier: There was *extensive* discussion during our BOF approval call between the IESG and IAB regarding why this BOF was proposing new protocol rather than using existing things (examples given -- whatever their real applicability -- were DNS-SD and DHCP). There's nothing in the current agenda or the presentations that attempt to address this. I think we probably need to deal with this directly. Do folks think it is reasonable to not only be prepared for these questions (with specific attention to why DNS-SD and DHCP are or are not appropriate to this problem area) but also to maybe have a slide mentioning it? pr -- Pete Resnick Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478 _______________________________________________ aggsrv mailing list aggsrv@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aggsrv ------QVLKPE607YM38O42JHIXBWZ8I6XUJZ Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Pete,

Yes, I think it's a valid point. When I read the draft, it reminded me of our dialog on WebFinger. There are clear similarities.

Andrew intends to touch on all of these options in his presentation. I intend to talk about how we could use WF.

Paul

From: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>
Sent: Mon Mar 11 13:32:45 EDT 2013
To: aggsrv@ietf.org
Subject: [Aggsrv] Possible agenda bash

I should have said more about this earlier:

There was *extensive* discussion during our BOF approval call between 
the IESG and IAB regarding why this BOF was proposing new protocol 
rather than using existing things (examples given -- whatever their real 
applicability -- were DNS-SD and DHCP). There's nothing in the current 
agenda or the presentations that attempt to address this. I think we 
probably need to deal with this directly. Do folks think it is 
reasonable to not only be prepared for these questions (with specific 
attention to why DNS-SD and DHCP are or are not appropriate to this 
problem area) but also to maybe have a slide mentioning it?

pr
------QVLKPE607YM38O42JHIXBWZ8I6XUJZ-- From adb@cisco.com Mon Mar 11 12:15:51 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: aggsrv@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: aggsrv@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5C0311E8165 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 12:15:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6UbwzZ9uKYCZ for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 12:15:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3CDF11E8120 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 12:15:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4567; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1363029350; x=1364238950; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=6DmMe0yIIYARFaSJQxCsZYSB0V4wgTI+FkYSuGsyVtU=; b=KBgNOGS77J+Wz4WWXEEgS4lUVbd6+Hb1SkSy87qTH/Li1qwx8SFz+7Q/ xjASp+szWMcMkQGFPFjjXiU79t8GAS+m6p2bY9+kHXcW3UCEVNFoIwidp eo2tnwwa2naz08fX6d2MSnHluL67A/CM6RMvMA/kDVoZBiq1DeJyzCAdC A=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgEFAJAsPlGtJV2a/2dsb2JhbABDhBvAS4FfFnSCKQEBAQICgQsBCAQNBAEBCx05FAkIAgQBEggBiAoMvyiOXSYRAYJfYQOnSoMKgig X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,825,1355097600"; d="scan'208,217";a="186272374" Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 11 Mar 2013 19:15:44 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x13.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x13.cisco.com [173.36.12.87]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r2BJFhhD029252 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 11 Mar 2013 19:15:43 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x06.cisco.com ([169.254.1.248]) by xhc-aln-x13.cisco.com ([173.36.12.87]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 14:15:43 -0500 From: "Andrew Biggs (adb)" To: "Paul E. Jones" , Pete Resnick , "aggsrv@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [Aggsrv] Possible agenda bash Thread-Index: AQHOHn62+spt3wIfAUSqvObLzIs4I5ihFceA//+2HIA= Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 19:15:42 +0000 Message-ID: <4289BE64A83C6C4384EE9245D4644539237DA961@xmb-aln-x06.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <69f1ac25-6d62-4e22-bb3d-aa7ee1ab8772@email.android.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.1.130117 x-originating-ip: [10.21.147.6] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4289BE64A83C6C4384EE9245D4644539237DA961xmbalnx06ciscoc_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Aggsrv] Possible agenda bash X-BeenThere: aggsrv@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Aggregated Service Discovery \(aggsrv\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 19:15:51 -0000 --_000_4289BE64A83C6C4384EE9245D4644539237DA961xmbalnx06ciscoc_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Agree, this is a very good point. Slide 3 of the problem statement slides = is intended to introduce that discussion. http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/86/slides/slides-86-aggsrv-1.pdf Andrew On 3/11/13 11:40 AM, "Paul E. Jones" > wrote: Pete, Yes, I think it's a valid point. When I read the draft, it reminded me of o= ur dialog on WebFinger. There are clear similarities. Andrew intends to touch on all of these options in his presentation. I inte= nd to talk about how we could use WF. Paul ________________________________ From: Pete Resnick > Sent: Mon Mar 11 13:32:45 EDT 2013 To: aggsrv@ietf.org Subject: [Aggsrv] Possible agenda bash I should have said more about this earlier: There was *extensive* discussion during our BOF approval call between the IESG and IAB regarding why this BOF was proposing new protocol rather than using existing things (examples given -- whatever their real applicability -- were DNS-SD and DHCP). There's nothing in the current agenda or the presentations that attempt to address this. I think we probably need to deal with this directly. Do folks think it is reasonable to not only be prepared for these questions (with specific attention to why DNS-SD and DHCP are or are not appropriate to this problem area) but also to maybe have a slide mentioning it? pr --_000_4289BE64A83C6C4384EE9245D4644539237DA961xmbalnx06ciscoc_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <2DF4797DB1CAD244B6BED42C211B72B5@cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Agree, this is a very good point.  Slide 3 of the problem stateme= nt slides is intended to introduce that discussion.

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/86/slides/slides-86-aggsrv-1.pdf =

Andrew

On 3/11/13 11:40 AM, "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com> wrote:

Pete,

Yes, I think it's a valid point. When I read the draft, it reminded me of o= ur dialog on WebFinger. There are clear similarities.

Andrew intends to touch on all of these options in his presentation. I inte= nd to talk about how we could use WF.

Paul

From: Pete Resnick <= presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>
Sent: Mon Mar 11 13:32:45 EDT 2013
To: aggsrv@ietf.org
Subject: [Aggsrv] Possible agenda bash

I should have said more about this earlier:
There was *extensive* discussion during our BOF approval call between 
=
the IESG and IAB regarding why this BOF was proposing new protocol 
rath=
er than using existing things (examples given -- whatever their real 
ap=
plicability -- were DNS-SD and DHCP). There's nothing in the current 
ag=
enda or the presentations that attempt to address this. I think we 
prob=
ably need to deal with this directly. Do folks think it is 
reasonable t=
o not only be prepared for these questions (with specific 
attention to =
why DNS-SD and DHCP are or are not appropriate to this 
problem area) bu=
t also to maybe have a slide mentioning it?

pr
 --_000_4289BE64A83C6C4384EE9245D4644539237DA961xmbalnx06ciscoc_-- From adb@cisco.com Sun Mar 17 13:20:37 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: aggsrv@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: aggsrv@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F288821F8BC0 for ; Sun, 17 Mar 2013 13:20:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iDd+C8KSw4F6 for ; Sun, 17 Mar 2013 13:20:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3462E21F8BBD for ; Sun, 17 Mar 2013 13:20:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2468; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1363551636; x=1364761236; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=s++aPpkYSpWm9XwHVAAhlqQ+MGM8TnhNxbwUCtlSHUU=; b=NOL3VlUzP6XSBGDp8FVHVyZx9ELdUpbCS5FfAmnb1ldsnLH7h9/kIerY e/zIfmWfAz/qHYoGm5pdEUQD/5gTwzJiXhNLtipPEobk5LuutdljQy8Om 39TKeU4yRvnAbqewDJ5uvLdBrwzSIkLVrFGiv5GeS6WpEc4pAh2Hj0u7Q 8=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgEFAD4kRlGtJV2a/2dsb2JhbABDhCnBDoFzFm0HgiwBBIELAQwBHVYnBBuIDKFOoC6NVIEQgxdhA6dggwqCKA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,860,1355097600"; d="scan'208,217";a="188403270" Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 17 Mar 2013 20:20:35 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x10.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x10.cisco.com [173.37.183.84]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r2HKKZYg004275 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Sun, 17 Mar 2013 20:20:35 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x06.cisco.com ([169.254.1.248]) by xhc-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([173.37.183.84]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Sun, 17 Mar 2013 15:20:35 -0500 From: "Andrew Biggs (adb)" To: "aggsrv@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: understanding the scope of "discovery" Thread-Index: AQHOI0zhdxnePYTEk0CJfRyfOYIPhw== Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 20:20:35 +0000 Message-ID: <4289BE64A83C6C4384EE9245D4644539237DD2AB@xmb-aln-x06.cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.1.130117 x-originating-ip: [10.21.86.216] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4289BE64A83C6C4384EE9245D4644539237DD2ABxmbalnx06ciscoc_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [Aggsrv] understanding the scope of "discovery" X-BeenThere: aggsrv@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Aggregated Service Discovery \(aggsrv\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 20:20:37 -0000 --_000_4289BE64A83C6C4384EE9245D4644539237DD2ABxmbalnx06ciscoc_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I thought an interesting point raised in the BoF was the possible overlap o= f aggregated discovery with the idea of automated client configuration. Th= is got me to wonder where the line ought to be drawn, if at all, as to the = sort of information intended for inclusion in an aggregated service discove= ry document. For example, would any of the following be appropriate data t= o include in a discovery document when configuring a particular service? * Synchronization window (such as for calendaring). * Session timeout. * Minimum polling interval. * Settings defaults for client behaviors, auto sign-in, etc. Cheers, Andrew --_000_4289BE64A83C6C4384EE9245D4644539237DD2ABxmbalnx06ciscoc_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <1DD96BABA4EBD24E9D3ECC56C3CD0303@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I thought an interesting point raised in the BoF was the possible over= lap of aggregated discovery with the idea of automated client configuration= .  This got me to wonder where the line ought to be drawn, if at all, = as to the sort of information intended for inclusion in an aggregated service discovery document.  For examp= le, would any of the following be appropriate data to include in a discover= y document when configuring a particular service?

* Sync= hronization window (such as for calendaring).
* Sess= ion timeout.
* Mini= mum polling interval.
* Sett= ings defaults for client behaviors, auto sign-in, etc.

Cheers,
Andrew

--_000_4289BE64A83C6C4384EE9245D4644539237DD2ABxmbalnx06ciscoc_-- From alexey.melnikov@isode.com Tue Mar 19 06:46:41 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: aggsrv@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: aggsrv@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01C0621F8BE2 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2013 06:46:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.552 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.552 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.349, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jSDTVjBdQYP7 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2013 06:46:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from statler.isode.com (statler.isode.com [62.3.217.254]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23AA021F8BDE for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2013 06:46:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1363700796; d=isode.com; s=selector; i=@isode.com; bh=Em+OtVZGWgR1jH4VCzmNz3RglCDpGuRFB/DiqbawhaQ=; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description; b=vaPUSTBNuJXR5lIktkMsIEObrJZAiYPhnK8Yz6W80r3x5TzFNgc2zUB427LJgbqnbfV9zL KsXpdcW7U+YrYNFfRytfl0PIWRgI9MfRVyscE5Tqk0nWDLY3lKE5derdMQtK3dJfHHuU6S mDbkOKbNoDlYL8J025q5E5/J1uvA4E0=; Received: from [10.8.39.4] (173-14-120-161-richmond.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [173.14.120.161]) by statler.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id ; Tue, 19 Mar 2013 13:46:36 +0000 References: <4289BE64A83C6C4384EE9245D4644539237DD2AB@xmb-aln-x06.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <4289BE64A83C6C4384EE9245D4644539237DD2AB@xmb-aln-x06.cisco.com> Message-Id: <0D99038D-1D63-4B6E-944A-7F1EFF255F8C@isode.com> X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (10A523) From: Alexey Melnikov Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 09:52:20 -0400 To: "Andrew Biggs (adb)" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "aggsrv@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Aggsrv] understanding the scope of "discovery" X-BeenThere: aggsrv@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Aggregated Service Discovery \(aggsrv\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 13:46:41 -0000 Hi Andrew, IMHO, if these things are available in the protocol being negotiated, then I= think they shouldn't be returned by the aggregated service discovery. On 17 Mar 2013, at 16:20, "Andrew Biggs (adb)" wrote: > I thought an interesting point raised in the BoF was the possible overlap o= f aggregated discovery with the idea of automated client configuration. Thi= s got me to wonder where the line ought to be drawn, if at all, as to the so= rt of information intended for inclusion in an aggregated service discovery d= ocument. For example, would any of the following be appropriate data to inc= lude in a discovery document when configuring a particular service? >=20 > * Synchronization window (such as for calendaring). > * Session timeout. > * Minimum polling interval. > * Settings defaults for client behaviors, auto sign-in, etc. >=20 > Cheers, > Andrew From adb@cisco.com Tue Mar 19 08:22:35 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: aggsrv@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: aggsrv@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 907AF21F8D5F for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2013 08:22:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DU7haN8tTxWG for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2013 08:22:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE91B21F8D5D for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2013 08:22:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1596; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1363706555; x=1364916155; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=SKtlM9CltAItBbi1WqKbklEXDBzXFHx4zsrMZcCeIuU=; b=b7PJa8MFYC4ALzqdevNSXjsbWRRx+TqSiVvxONm9d6lxl6nhHoGdiql6 MmkyquXTvubrf/dLZSxJ3ZPA05h2PNbc0Sm2DIzvcdTnhtqx8BeI0Jqkd TSAts+Eo6bo6KIuxoZavM8Gi1z3LanEuVkQRBf/Pgf92ZOhGw4lmMIlDg o=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAACCSFGtJV2c/2dsb2JhbABDxQ+BVxZ0giQBAQEEOj8SAQgYChRCJQIEDgUIiAyyLZAejU0LgQUxB4JfYQOnYYMKgWo+ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,872,1355097600"; d="scan'208";a="189082089" Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 19 Mar 2013 15:22:34 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com [173.37.183.85]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r2JFMYPP012507 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 19 Mar 2013 15:22:34 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x06.cisco.com ([169.254.1.248]) by xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com ([173.37.183.85]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Tue, 19 Mar 2013 10:22:34 -0500 From: "Andrew Biggs (adb)" To: Alexey Melnikov Thread-Topic: [Aggsrv] understanding the scope of "discovery" Thread-Index: AQHOI0zhdxnePYTEk0CJfRyfOYIPh5itXyoA//+0nwA= Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 15:22:33 +0000 Message-ID: <4289BE64A83C6C4384EE9245D4644539237DE086@xmb-aln-x06.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <0D99038D-1D63-4B6E-944A-7F1EFF255F8C@isode.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.1.130117 x-originating-ip: [10.129.24.51] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <772613667A0EC349988247E64EABC990@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "aggsrv@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Aggsrv] understanding the scope of "discovery" X-BeenThere: aggsrv@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Aggregated Service Discovery \(aggsrv\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 15:22:35 -0000 I definitely agree, it might even be worth making an explicit statement to that effect in the draft. Even in the case where the protocol being negotiated doesn't provide a means for establishing a given operational parameter, I'm wondering if we should provide any guidance on the kind of information that should be included as part of discovery. For example, should it be limited strictly to information needed to establish a connection to a service, or should implementors be free to include anything they find useful, up to and including general client configuration? On 3/19/13 7:52 AM, "Alexey Melnikov" wrote: >Hi Andrew, > >IMHO, if these things are available in the protocol being negotiated, >then I think they shouldn't be returned by the aggregated service >discovery. > >On 17 Mar 2013, at 16:20, "Andrew Biggs (adb)" wrote: > >> I thought an interesting point raised in the BoF was the possible >>overlap of aggregated discovery with the idea of automated client >>configuration. This got me to wonder where the line ought to be drawn, >>if at all, as to the sort of information intended for inclusion in an >>aggregated service discovery document. For example, would any of the >>following be appropriate data to include in a discovery document when >>configuring a particular service? >>=20 >> * Synchronization window (such as for calendaring). >> * Session timeout. >> * Minimum polling interval. >> * Settings defaults for client behaviors, auto sign-in, etc. >>=20 >> Cheers, >> Andrew >