Subject: [dnssd] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnssd-requirements-02.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2014 21:32:36 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the Extensions for Scalable DNS Service Discovery  Working Group of the IETF.

        Title           : Requirements for Scalable DNS-SD/mDNS Extensions
        Authors         : Kerry Lynn
                          Stuart Cheshire
                          Marc Blanchet
                          Daniel Migault
	Filename        : draft-ietf-dnssd-requirements-02.txt
	Pages           : 11
	Date            : 2014-06-09

Abstract:
   DNS-SD/mDNS is widely used today for discovery and resolution of
   services and names on a local link, but there are use cases to extend
   DNS-SD/mDNS to enable service discovery beyond the local link.  This
   document provides a problem statement and a list of requirements.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnssd-requirements/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnssd-requirements-02

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dnssd-requirements-02

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Kerry Lynn <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 00:50:19 -0400

Greetings,

I have posted a new version of the Requirements Draft that addresses most of
the issues raised by Dave Thaler and posted to this list on 3 March.  In
those
cases where I did not address his comments (DT14, DT15, DT16) I did not
feel I understood the point(s) well enough to generate alternate text.  Any
help
would be appreciated.

If there are any remaining issues that you feel are necessary to address
before
WGLC, I request that you send them along with proposed text by this Friday,
13 June.  For example, how much specificity should we have regarding the
definition of discovery scopes or zones in the Requirements Draft?

There are two issues in particular that I would like discussion on: 1) we
cite
RFC 2119 but don't capitalize any of the keywords.  Should we use keywords,
or delete the reference to 2119?  2) Is everyone comfortable with a separate
threat model document?  Presumably that should be referenced in the security
section of the Requirements Draft.

Thanks in advance for your help, -K-

On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:32 AM, <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> dnssd mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnssd
>