Sim IJskes - QCG wrote:
On 11/07/2010 09:12 PM, Peter Firmstone wrote:
Cutting too much corners here? If not, shall we add this to the wiki?
In the same sense as a Discovery V2 datagram packet, I would strongly
discourage the use of Discovery V1.
Because you want to phaseout V1 i guess? Can we ever?
The the DNS-SD registry is only for lookup services, ServiceRegistrar in
this case.
Yes we do need to document it, perhaps as a draft spec, in the wiki?
http://wiki.apache.org/river/InternetJini ?
V2 countains more data than V1, including an unlimited array. Any idea
how to format this in SRV records?
Gr. Sim
TXT keys:
sid=<128bit hash code service ID>
grp=<comma separated list of group names to which the service belongs>
alternative:
grp=<space delimited list of group names to which the service belongs>
We might consider creating a new spec specific to DNS-SD, to account for
it's limitations, with information required to perform Unicast Discovery V2.
Obviously the number of groups a registrar can join is limited by the
TXT fields which, is recommended to be limited between 200 to 400 bytes,
in extreme cases, up to 1,300 bytes is the practical limit, limited by a
1,500 byte Ethernet packet.
The reason to avoid V1, is mostly due to it's unicast implementation, it
has no privacy integrity or authentication ability and uses
MarshalledObject's serialized form, over which we have no control.
We may also consider an additional separate format for implementing a
dynamic addressable Endpoint for services (not used for Discovery),
perhaps with only a single txt key:
TXT keys:
sid=<128bit hash code service ID>
Cheers,
Peter.
