Subject: [dnssd] My (slightly updated) notes on draft-ietf-dnssd-hybrid-00

From: Markus Stenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 10:55:39 +0200

(in order of importance; I did these in case I had to talk about it in dnssd..)

** S 3.2

MUST -> SHOULD, and I agree, but if I e.g. autogenerate domain
names, rather use LDH domain names for services too.

** S 3.5

- no LLQ -> 'three times' is highly suspicious

- also, it does not specify what delay for the 3 times (or how to wait for
 final reply)
 
 - can results be given before all 3 are completed? unclear, but e.g. CF
 and non-CF should behave differently here IMO

my recommendation (abd what we have implemented):

- send once
 - return CF result immediately if it comes
 - otherwise return 'after implementation-specific delay'

** S 3.4.1

I consider 10 sec TTL bit low; no experimental results to back it up. As it
is a SHOULD, no big deal.

** S (meta)

LLQ => push (I would rather wait for push to be referrable than publish as
is)

** (impl)

- 2 years since my first implementation of this actually worked (in Berlin
summer IETF)

- NO change to our impl logic (although some might be argued for) since, I
think, although there was one re-implementation effort in the middle
(Lua->C).

Cheers,

-Markus