Subject: Re: comments on draft-ietf-zeroconf-reqts-11.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 09:33:51 +0200

Dear all,

I tend to agree with the separation of the name space requirements.
Currently, we assume that link-local addresses will only be used during
the absence of a DHCP server and that DHCP servers will be present in the 
home
because there is always a connection to the outside world via a 
residential gateway.
DHCP servers are also present in for example set-top boxes.
Link-local addresses become interesting for ad-hoc networks (two people 
meeting in the street,
or emptying your personal music archive to the home storage). For those 
cases
local names are needed.

When connections exist to the outside world, one may consider that local 
names
and global names co-exist and that different mechanisms exist to support 
them.
Simple browsing on local names seems reasonable while more sophisticated
searching from applications is wanted for global services.

Therefore, I would suggest to decouple the existence of local names from 
the 
usage of link-local addresses. Local names can exist independent of
link-local addresses.

Peter van der Stok                Philips Research Laboratories Eindhoven
Bldg: WDC 3-041                  Prof. Holstlaan 4
Phone: +31 40 2742649       5656 AA Eindhoven
Fax:      +31 40 2786516       The Netherlands
Mailto: Peter.van.der.Stok@ philips.com

Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Sent by: [email-masked]
11-09-2002 04:14

        To:     Aidan Williams <[email-masked]>
        cc:     Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Zeroconf <[email-masked]>
(bcc: Peter van der Stok/EHV/RESEARCH/PHILIPS)
        Subject:        Re: comments on draft-ietf-zeroconf-reqts-11.txt
        Classification: 

Thanks for the reply.  I think I agree with most of it, will 
probably respond on a few details later.

But to immediately follow-up on probably the most significant issue: 
I agree that there are far fewer issues with LLMNR/mDNS/ZNS if it 
is clear that these names are separate from DNS names.  However the 
examples in mdns-12 make me think that they're not going to be separate 
(especially in contrast to an earlier version of that document where 
the names were in a private local.arpa space). 

So it might be a good idea for the requirements document to separately
cover both private names and public names because the requirements for 
the two cases seem to differ considerably.

Keith