On 01-Dec-21 01:55, Esko Dijk wrote:
While reviewing latest updates; one other issue came up: the draft (re latest
in Github) currently mentions DNS-SD as a means for a Pledge to discover a Join
Proxy.
But for DNS-SD discovery I believe a service name is needed; see RFC 6763 Section 7. But there’s no service name yet defined for a
Join Proxy.
Easiest solution would be to remove the entire DNS-SD sentence and reference.
I.e. defer this to a future document.
I think there's another reason for deferring it. We have a pending proposal in
draft-eckert-anima-grasp-dnssd for how DNS-SD will integrate in an autonomic
environment. It seems wise to have more clarity about that before defining how
DNS-SD works for a Join Proxy. The two things may be completely orthogonal, but
that requires a little thought.
Brian
If not removed, we probably need to add a service name registration for
Constrained Join Proxy such that it can advertise its service and port over
DNS-SD/mDNS correctly.
(Note: the above is unrelated to my earlier remark on requiring a service name for the Registrar’s JPY protocol support. This could also
be discovered over DNS-SD/mDNS but would need a separate service name.)
Best regards
Esko
*IoTconsultancy.nl* | Email/Teams: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> |
+31 6 2385 8339
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
