Subject: Re: Discovering Named Instances of Abstract Services using DNS

From: Stuart Cheshire <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 19:00:51 -0700

Two weeks ago I asked:

><http://files.dns-sd.org/draft-cheshire-dnsext-nias.txt>
>How many people have read the draft and think it is a good idea?
>How many people have read the draft and think it is a bad idea?

Here is a summary of the responses I received:

Brad Hards:      "I think it is good" is closer to my opinion.
Alex Karahalios:  I've read NIAS and I think it is good.
Joshua Graessley: I've read NIAS and I think it is good.
Mark Thompson:    I've read NIAS and I think it is good, - but flawed.
John C. Welch:    I've read NIAS and I think it is good.
Varuni Witana:    I've read NIAS and I think it is bad.
Dan Nicolae:      I read it (fast) and I think the idea of using
                  DNS for discovery in ad-hoc networks is good.
Robert Elz:       If you seriously expect the WG to consider this,
                  you really should take the effort to keep it current
                  (Robert didn't like it.)

This is a small sample (though not too different to the response you get 
when asking about any Internet Draft), but the results appear to be:

Generally Positive: 6
Generally Negative: 2

So, there appears to be some limited interest in this.
There are two ways to proceed now:

1. The IETF community would like to take charge of this work
   and help evolve it in a sensible direction.

2. The IETF community has no interest in this,
   and Apple should just publish it as an Informational RFC.

Thoughts?

Stuart Cheshire <[email-masked]>
 * Wizard Without Portfolio, Apple Computer
 * Chairman, IETF ZEROCONF
 * www.stuartcheshire.org

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 16:33:04 -0400

>    and Apple should just publish it as an Informational RFC.

3. A much wider community needs to carefully examine this before any
decision about IETF investment or RFC publication is made.  

Keith

---

From: james mcmurry <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 13:38:52 -0700

How wide of a "community" should look into this?

Should there be a group of people elected to review this?  (other than 
the people on this list as a whole)

Jim

<been lurking for a year....only now felt compelled to get involved>

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 16:41:43 -0400

> How wide of a "community" should look into this?

well, when you start talking about changing DNS, you're threatening
to break every host and every application on the Internet.  

it's certainly not something within zeroconf's purview, and IMHO even
the *dns* groups should solicit wide review from apps area groups
before tampering with such things.  

fortunately, the *dns* groups have traditionally taken their 
responsibilities to avoid harm fairly seriously.  I can't say the
same for zeroconf.

Keith

---

From: "John C. Welch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 17:55:26 -0400

> responsibilities to avoid harm fairly seriously.  I can't say the

Um...it's real irresponsible to make the zeroconf group out to be a bunch of
yahoos bent on destroying DNS. From everything I've read in the mDNS and
other papers, they've bent over backwards to avoid causing harm to DNS. Are
they updating it? Yes. Causing harm? Well, that's what things like the WG
and this mailing list are trying to deal with.

Luckily, as of August 24th, you're shortly going to have what is, without a
doubt, the best, and in the end, the only way to see if something really
works:

Real - world testing on a large scale.

I'm in the middle of setting up a domain that will, among other things start
implementing Zeroconf/Rendezvous along with conventional DNS, so I'll be
able to see in a reasonably real - world setting what works and what
doesn't.

John

-- 
John C. Welch
IT Manager
MIT Police
(617) 253 - 3093 work
(508) 579 - 7380 cell
(617) 253 - 8822 fax

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 22:42:04 -0400

> yahoos bent on destroying DNS.

hey, it's not just DNS - it's IP also :)

of course zeroconf isn't trying to destroy DNS, or IP.  
but neither does it seem to be very concerned about compatibility issues.

as for your supposed real-world testing, I don't think MIT can even
approach the diversity that exists in the internet.  So I'd consider
it useless.

Keith

---

From: "John C. Welch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 00:28:48 -0400

> hey, it's not just DNS - it's IP also :)

IP has been serviceless for too long, and been the bane of the non-technical
users existance for just as long. If people really want to see things like
appliances on a network, then things like zeroconf are going to be a
requirement.

> but neither does it seem to be very concerned about compatibility issues.

Have you read the specs? There's yards of verbiage that deals with
compatibility.

> approach the diversity that exists in the internet.  So I'd consider

Well, okay, so I *only* have:

Solaris 8
AIX 4.3
AIX 5L
Linux
Windows 2000
Windows NT
Mac OS X 10.2
OS/400

Yep, you're absolutely right, no diversity at all. I still need a mainframe,
and OS/2 box, an SGI, two crays, an amiga, and a TRS-80 model III on dial
up.

But since at least I'm trying to contribute something besides deconstructive
criticism, I'm pretty happy with it over all.

john

-- 
John C. Welch
IT Manager
MIT Police
(617) 253 - 3093 work
(508) 579 - 7380 cell
(617) 253 - 8822 fax

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 09:26:01 -0400

> appliances on a network, then things like zeroconf are going to be a

I don't disagree, I just think that considerably more attention to compatibility 
issues is warranted.

> Well, okay, so I *only* have:

I'm *so* impressed :)  But I was talking about diversity of users.

> criticism, I'm pretty happy with it over all.

I'm hoping to find time to contribute more constructively (i.e. in more detail)
Unfortunately our process places the burden of doing detailed analysis on 
the people who raise objections, not (as normal engineering discipline would
dictate) on the people who make proposals.

Keith

---

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 05:39:24 -0700 (PDT)

> > yahoos bent on destroying DNS.

Actually, it matters little whether the members of Zeroconf WG are
yahoos bent on destroying DNS, or angels sent from heaven to
save DNS -- because Zeroconf has no charter items relating to DNS.

DNSEXT WG has the responsibility of destroying (or saving) DNS.

> hey, it's not just DNS - it's IP also :)

There is indeed a work item relating to IP (IPv4 linklocal), but not DNS.

Bernard

"It doesn't have to finish - but it must stop."
  -- Mike O'Dell

---

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 05:42:51 -0700 (PDT)

To: IETF-Announce: ;
Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dnsext-mdns-12.txt
From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 07:55:19 -0400
Cc: [email-masked]
Reply-to: [email-masked]
Sender: [email-masked]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

	Title		: Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)
	Author(s)	: L. Esibov, B. Aboba, D. Thaler
	Filename	: draft-ietf-dnsext-mdns-12.txt
	Pages		: 20
	Date		: 2002-8-27

Today, with the rise of home networking, there are an increasing number
of ad-hoc networks operating without a DNS server. In order to allow
name resolution in such environments, Link-Local Multicast Name
Resolution (LLMNR) is proposed. LLMNR supports all current and future
DNS formats, types and classes, while operating on a separate port from
DNS, and with a distinct resolver cache.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsext-mdns-12.txt

To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to
ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the
message.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the
username
"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in,
type "cd internet-drafts" and then
	"get draft-ietf-dnsext-mdns-12.txt".

A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.

Send a message to:
	[email-masked].
In the body type:
	"FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsext-mdns-12.txt".

NOTE:	The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in
	MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility.  To use this
	feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE"
	command.  To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or
	a MIME-compliant mail reader.  Different MIME-compliant mail
readers
	exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with
	"multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split
	up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on
	how to manipulate these messages.

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.

<ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsext-mdns-12.txt>

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 09:40:08 -0400

> save DNS -- because Zeroconf has no charter items relating to DNS.

true, but some of the proposals originated here, and this group seems
to have the assumption that changing how DNS works is part of the
solution space for what this group is trying to achieve - even if someone
else has to do it.

---

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 05:49:41 -0700 (PDT)

> solution space for what this group is trying to achieve - even if someone

Some in this group may be operating under that assumption -- but the IESG
in its wisdom did not vest that power in the Zeroconf WG.

Instead, they vested it in the WG that owns responsibility for DNS -
namely DNSEXT WG.

The DNSEXT WG reviewed the mDNS proposals that originated here -- and
so far has chosen not to grant them standards track status.

They did however, originate their own proposal, and put it on the
standards track in DNSEXT WG. This is the LLMNR draft.

---

From: "John C. Welch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 16:11:05 -0400

> I'm *so* impressed :)  But I was talking about diversity of users.

It's a bunch of people using their network, not students. We are going 
to be testing student labs as well.

*Obviously* any test isn't going to perfectly mirror the internet. But 
testing in a real world situation, as opposed to an artificially 
created lab is a good way to find odd things that could go wrong.

> dictate) on the people who make proposals.

well, at least someone's testing something somewhere. It's the best way 
to find real, as opposed to perceived problems.

john