Subject: RE: internet draft

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 09:28:47 +0100

Jim,

Thanks for your question.
My suggestion is the second:

Zeroconf WG provide some "suggestions" or "recommendations" how naming 
services could comply with Zeroconf requirements.

This is supported by the content of sections 3.2 and 4 of ZeroConf Host 
profile Applicability Statement.
I wanted to point out where, in my view, additional recommendations are 
needed.
This may lead to recommendations to for example DNS WGs.
I am convinced that my list is not exhaustive and other ponts may come up 
in the future.
Some points are possibly already addressed outside my perception.

Peter

Peter van der Stok                Philips Research Laboratories Eindhoven
Bldg: WDC 1-015                  Prof. Holstlaan 4
Phone: +31 40 2742649       5656 AA Eindhoven
Fax:      +31 40 2745033       The Netherlands
Mailto: Peter.van.der.Stok@ philips.com

Jim Busse <[email-masked]>
Sent by: [email-masked]
18-12-01 23:36

        To:     Peter van der Stok/EHV/RESEARCH/PHILIPS@EMEA3
[email-masked]
        cc:     Rob Udink/EHV/RESEARCH/PHILIPS@EMEA3
        Subject:        RE: internet draft
        Classification: 

Peter:
 
Please help me understand.   I was a little confused after reading your 
draft.  I think most of the draft revolves around naming services, so:
 
Is it your suggestion that Zeroconf expand its scope to include the 
specification of a naming service which would comply with the Zeroconf 
protocol requirements?
 
Or is your suggestion that Zeroconf WG provide some "suggestions" or 
"recommendations" how naming services could comply with Zeroconf 
requirements?
 
If your suggestion is not accurately summarized by either of these, could 
you please help me understand by giving me a simple summary of your 
suggestion? 
 
Thanks.
 
Jim Busse
-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 12:48 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: internet draft

Dear all, 

based on the feedback I received after my talk during the 51st IETF 
meeting in London 
I prepared an Internet-draft that is currently available at 

ftp://ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-vanderstok-zeroconf-issues-00.txt 

In the draft I try to identify situations in which ambiguities exist with 
respect to the deployment of 
zero-configuration protocols. Most of the concerns are related to 
situations between 
a small completely unconfigured network and a network that is competely 
configured with DHCP servers. 

As Stuart Cheshire pointed out, many issues are easily resolved. However, 
multiple 
possibly conflicting solutions are possible for most of them. 
It is my opinion that zeroconf WG can play a role in coordinating and 
identifying areas where 
the removal of configuration administration  can lead to conflicting 
implementations. 
Recommendations can be formulated in the Zeroconf Host Profile 
Applicability Statement. 

I know that some people disagree. 

Peter

Peter van der Stok                Philips Research Laboratories Eindhoven
Bldg: WDC 1-015                  Prof. Holstlaan 4
Phone: +31 40 2742649       5656 AA Eindhoven
Fax:      +31 40 2745033       The Netherlands
Mailto: Peter.van.der.Stok@ philips.com

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 07:16:42 -0800

Hey List Manager - Is there a way to get something like [zeroconf] or [zc] added in as the basis of each subject line so these can be filtered properly and I and others dont miss them.

Todd

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 12:22:24 -0500

> Hey List Manager - Is there a way to get something like [zeroconf] or [zc]
> added in as the basis of each subject line so these can be filtered properly
> and I and others dont miss them.

arrgh.  please don't.  I'm sick and tired of those frobs polluting 
subject lines.

if the list is run properly, and your mail delivery works properly,
you should be able to filter/collate on the return-path header. 

Keith

---

From: Peter Johansson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 10:07:19 -0800

At 12:22 PM 12/19/2001 -0500, Keith Moore wrote:

>if the list is run properly, and your mail delivery works properly, you 
>should be able to filter/collate on the return-path header.

I have no trouble filtering on the Sender: field (in this case, 
[email-masked]).

I, too, would argue against cluttering the subject line.

Regards,

Peter Johansson

Congruent Software, Inc.
98 Colorado Avenue
Berkeley, CA  94707

(510) 527-3926
(510) 527-3856 FAX

[email-masked]

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 10:44:55 -0800

Peter you are wrong I think -
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Johansson" <[email-masked]>
To: "Zero Configuration" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 10:07 AM
Subject: Re: proposed change to the "Subject Header" from this WG

> [email-masked]).

But you can't see the sender field with most mail tools - and there is
nothing stopping people from placing the ZeroConf on the CC line so that the
FILTER for ZC  would have to be on all lines. And if you look at what
pressing the reply buton does to this email. It said the Sender in this case
is 'From: "Peter Johansson" <[email-masked]>' so here the ZC rule would
fail as well.

Myself - I think that this is a personal issue with virtually all who
objected. and that there are no real good reasons for not putting better
tags into the HEADER or at least consistant ones.

> I, too, would argue against cluttering the subject line.

Why - what in particular makes it easier to see ZeroConf in a list of
subjects?