Agreed.
--
David Harrington
Director, Transport Area
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
[email protected]
+1-603-828-1401





On 3/15/12 1:26 PM, "Paul Duffy" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>  
>    
>  
>  
>    On 3/10/2012 1:58 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>    
>      
>      
>      Re: [homenet] Discovery [snmp for monitoring home network]
>      
>      On 2012-03-10 08:42, Paul Duffy wrote:
>          > On 3/9/2012 1:55 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>          >> On 2012-03-10 05:00, Jim Gettys wrote:
>          >> ...
>          >>> I was just observing comments I came across in
>          code being used for
>          >>> printer discovery.
>          >> Why would we consider anything other than SLP for
>          service discovery?
>          >
>          > Its my understanding that mDNS/DNS-SD and UPnP SDDP have
>          far more
>          > traction in the consumer space than SLP.
>          >
>          > Please do correct if I'm wrong.
>          
>          Aren't we trying to influence the future rather than document
>          the
>          past?
>        
>    
>
>    
>    Agreed.  The initial discussion re: service discovery should be
>    requirements driven.
>    
>    I'll admit guilt re: starting to jump to a pre-mature conclusion.
>    Partly driven by issue fatigue.   I've been involved with this same
>    requirements based discussion re: zero touch service discovery now
>    within several venues, over many years.  Its largely the same cast
>    of characters.  SLP vs DNS-SD vs uPnP  SDDP.
>    
>    At some point, there needs to be a practical incorporation of which
>    way the wind is blowing, unless there are compelling reasons to do
>    otherwise.
>    
>    
>      
>          
>          We need a name-based service discovery solution. That's also a
>          requirement emerging from 6renum. I think we should decide
>          what's
>          the best recommendation; it may end up being DNS-based, but
>          this
>          is what SLP was designed for, so IMHO it should be considered.
>          
>          This is clearly *not* what SNMP was designed for.
>        
>    
>
>    
>    Totally agree.  Particularly in light of the fact that IETF has
>    acknowledged SNMP is typically used only for poll based status
>    monitoring.
>    
>    
>      
>          
>             Brian
>        
>      
>    
>
>    
>  
>


_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

Reply via email to