On 3 Oct 2013, at 18:07, manning bill <bmann...@isi.edu> wrote: > ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- > <dnssdext-requ...@ietf.org> > (reason: 550 5.1.1 <dnssdext-requ...@ietf.org>: Recipient address rejected: > User unknown in virtual alias table)
I think the active list is still mdns...@ietf.org? See: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mdnsext/current/maillist.html And the 'header' information below should now probably read something like this: --- snip --- Scalable DNS Service Discovery (dnssd) ------------------------------------------------ Current Status: Proposed WG Chairs: Ralph Droms <rdroms.i...@gmail.com> Tim Chown <t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk> Assigned Area Director: Ted Lemon <ted.le...@nominum.com> Mailing list Address: dn...@ietf.org To Subscribe: dnssd-requ...@ietf.org Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnssd Pre-WG BoF Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mdnsext --- snip --- Tim > > > > On 3October2013Thursday, at 8:42, The IESG wrote: > >> A new IETF working group has been proposed in the Internet Area. The IESG >> has not made any determination yet. The following draft charter was >> submitted, and is provided for informational purposes only. Please send >> your comments to the IESG mailing list (iesg at ietf.org) by 2013-10-10. >> >> Extensions for Scalable DNS Service Discovery (dnssd) >> ------------------------------------------------ >> Current Status: Proposed WG >> >> Chairs: >> Ralph Droms <rdroms.i...@gmail.com> >> Tim Chown <t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk> >> >> Assigned Area Director: >> Ted Lemon <ted.le...@nominum.com> >> >> Mailing list >> Address: dnssd...@ietf.org >> To Subscribe: dnssdext-requ...@ietf.org >> Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnssdext >> >> Charter: >> >> Background >> ---------- >> >> Zero configuration networking protocols are currently well suited to >> discover services within the scope of a single link. In particular, >> the DNS-SD [RFC 6763] and mDNS [RFC6762] protocol suite (sometimes >> referred to using Apple Computer Inc.'s trademark, Bonjour) are >> widely used for DNS-based service discovery and host name resolution >> on a single link. >> >> The DNS-SD/mDNS protocol suite is used in many scenarios including >> home, campus, and enterprise networks. However, the zero configuration >> mDNS protocol is constrained to link-local multicast scope by design, >> and therefore cannot be used to discover services on remote links. >> >> In a home network that consists of a single (possibly bridged) link, >> users experience the expected discovery behavior; available services >> appear because all devices share a common link. However, in multi-link >> home networks (as envisaged by the homenet WG) or in routed campus or >> enterprise networks, devices and users can only discover services on >> the same link, which is a significant limitation. This has led to >> calls, such as the Educause petition, to develop an appropriate service >> discovery solution to span multiple links or to perform discovery across >> a wide area, not necessarily on directly connected links. >> >> In addition, the "Smart Energy Profile 2 Application Protocol Standard", >> published by ZigBee Alliance and HomePlug Powerline Alliance specifies >> the DNS-SD/mDNS protocol suite as the basis for its method of zero >> configuration service discovery. However, its use of wireless mesh >> multi-link subnets in conjunction with traditional routed networks will >> require extensions to the DNS-SD/mDNS protocols to allow operation >> across multiple links. >> >> The scenarios in which multi-link service discovery is required may >> be zero configuration environments, environments where administrative >> configuration is supported, or a mixture of the two. >> >> As demand for service discovery across wider area routed networks >> grows, some vendors are beginning to ship proprietary solutions. It >> is thus both timely and important that efforts to develop improved, >> scalable, autonomous service discovery solutions for routed networks >> are coordinated towards producing a single, standards-based solution. >> >> The WG will consider the tradeoffs between reusing/extending existing >> protocols and developing entirely new ones. It is highly desirable >> that any new solution is backwardly compatible with existing DNS-SD/mDNS >> deployments. Any solution developed by the dnssd WG must not conflict >> or interfere with the operation of other zero-configuration service and >> naming protocols such as uPnP or LLMNR. Integration with such protocols >> is out of scope for this WG. >> >> The focus of the WG is to develop a solution for extended, scalable >> DNS-SD. This work is likely to highlight problems and challenges with >> naming protocols, as some level of coexistence will be required between >> local zero configuration name services and those forming part of the >> global DNS. It is important that these issues are captured and >> documented for further analysis; solving those problems is however not >> within the scope of this WG. >> >> Working Group Description >> ------------------------- >> >> To that end, the primary goals of the dnssd WG are as follows: >> >> 1. To document a set of requirements for scalable, autonomous >> DNS-based service discovery in routed, multi-link networks in the >> following five scenarios: >> >> (A) Personal Area networks, e.g., one laptop and one printer. >> This is the simplest example of a service discovery network, >> and may or may not have external connectivity. >> >> (B) Home networks, as envisaged by the homenet WG, consisting of >> one or more exit routers, with one or more upstream providers >> or networks, and an arbitrary internal topology with >> heterogeneous media where routing is automatically configured. >> The home network would typically be a single zero configuration >> administrative domain with a relatively limited number of >> devices. >> >> (C) Wireless 'hotspot' networks, which may include wireless networks >> made available in public places, or temporary or permanent >> infrastructures targeted towards meeting or conference style >> events, e.g., as provided for IETF meetings. In such >> environments other devices may be more likely to be 'hostile' >> to the user. >> >> (D) Enterprise networks, consisting of larger routed networks, >> with large numbers of devices, which may be deployments >> spanning over multiple sites with multiple upstreams, and >> one more more administrative domains (depending on internal >> administrative delegation). The large majority of the >> forwarding and security devices are configured. These may >> be commercial or academic networks, with differing levels >> of administrative control over certain devices on the network, >> and BYOD devices commonplace in the campus scenario. >> >> (E) Mesh networks such as RPL/6LoWPAN, with one or more links per >> routable prefix, which may or may not have external connectivity. >> The topology may use technologies including 802.11 wireless, >> HomePlug AV and GP, and ZigBee IP. >> >> In the above scenarios, the aim is to facilitate service discovery >> across the defined site. It is also desirable that a user or device, >> when away from such a site, is still able to discover services >> within that site, e.g. a user discovering services in their home >> network while remote from it. >> >> It is also desirable that multiple discovery scopes are supported, >> from the point of view of announcements and discovery, be the >> scope 'site', 'building', or 'room'. A user for example may only >> be interested in devices in the same room. >> >> 2. To develop an improved, scalable solution for service discovery >> that can operate in multi-link networks, where devices may be >> in neighboring or non-neighboring links, applicable to >> the scenarios above. The solution will consider tradeoffs between >> reusing/extending existing protocols and developing entirely new >> protocols. >> >> The solution should include documentation or definition of the >> interfaces that can be implemented, separately to transport of >> the information. >> >> 3. To document challenges and problems encountered in the coexistence >> of zero configuration and global DNS name services in such >> multi-link networks, including consideration of both the name >> resolution mechanism and the namespace. >> >> It is important that the dnssd WG takes input from stakeholders in >> the scenarios it is considering. For example, the homenet WG is >> currently evaluating its own requirements for naming and service >> discovery; it is up to the homenet WG as to whether it wishes to >> recommend adoption of the solution developed in the dnssd WG, but >> coordination between the WGs is desirable. >> >> Deliverables: >> >> The WG will produce three documents: an Informational RFC on the >> requirements for service discovery protocols operating on potentially >> non-neighboring multi-link networks as described above; a Standards >> Track RFC documenting an extended, scalable service discovery solution >> that is applicable to those scenarios; and an Informational RFC >> describing the problems arising when developing the extended SD solution >> and how it affects the integration of local zero configuration and global >> >> DNS name services. >> >> Milestones: >> Sep 2013 - Formation of the WG >> Oct 2013 - Adopt requirements draft as WG document >> Jan 2014 - Submit requirements draft to the IESG as an Informational >> RFC >> Mar 2014 - Adopt wide-area service discovery solution draft as WG >> document >> Mar 2014 - Adopt Informational document on the problems and challenges >> arising for zeroconf and unicast DNS name services >> Sep 2014 - Submit wide-area service discovery solution draft to the >> IESG as Standards Track RFC >> Sep 2014 - Submit the zeroconf and unicast DNS "problems and >> challenges" draft to the IESG as Informational. >> >> >
