On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 11:29:36AM -0500, Michael Richardson wrote:
> The problem is that I don't know how to read the paragraph I quoted.
> It *seems* to instruct IANA to reserve more names, yet doesn't actually go as
> far as saying that.

Sorry for my language being difficult to understand. The paragraph was 
meant to NOT give instructions to IANA (hence the "mentioned here for 
purposes"). Just to explain the choice of the name "SRV.est".

> If it is not doing that, then maybe it should be removed and
> let draft-eckert-anima-grasp-dnssd do it's thing.

Sure, i can remove that explanatory paragraph. Was just meant for a reviewer 
like you

> The problem is that once the document is adopted, the WG could decide that
> we want to name it "SERVICE.<foo>", or maybe some other scheme, but your
> text, in attempting to anticipate things, constraints what the WG can do.

The WG is completely free to do what it wants, adopt/not-adopt grasp-dnssd,
and if adopted choose the naming scheme. As an author of both drafts i
was just trying to make a good guess at a name to minimize the chance of
having to update it later. That's all. 

Wrt. good ideas that turned out not to be so good: check out the redundant
_udp, _tcp in DNS-SD names. Aka: There are worse things than picking 
naming schemes even if they don't work out later.

So, lets see if i understand your guidance:

I will remove the explanatory paragraph, but wait for the next rev i need to do
for IANA/IESG review anyhow. I will keep the suggested name SRV.est.

Let me know if thats not ok.


>     > The whole explanation of the idea and ask for reserving of the whole
>     > SRV.est is in draft-eckert-anima-grasp-dnssd. Once we would adopt this
>     > and it goes to RFC, that would be an update to GRASP RFC asking for the
>     > IANA update to the registry.
>     >> Note that the objective format "SRV.<service-name>" is intended to
>     >> be used for any <service-name> that is an [RFC6335] registered
>     >> service name.  This is a proposed update to the GRASP registry
>     >> subject to future work and only mentioned here for informational
>     >> purposed to explain the unique format of the objective name.
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
>  -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-


Anima mailing list

Reply via email to