Re: [Anima] ANI Autoconfiguration via DNS

2022-12-16 Thread Esko Dijk
Ok, this clarifies the concept further, thanks.

I see this as useful in a fully distributed ACP, for services to 'find each 
other' and also find nearest instances of particular services. All without 
having necessarily a central node that gets service registrations, keeps a 
database in memory of these, and serves service lookup requests.
(The latter concept of DNS service registration using an SRP Registrar as 
currently defined in the dnssd WG, is still possible - the Registrar itself can 
be advertised as a service in GRASP. But such thing may not be needed in ACP 
context. And it requires using the 'legacy' DNS-SD formats again.)

About using an ASA as a "proxy" to the classic DNS system, i.e. client sends 
GRASP service query and the proxy-ASA does the real DNS query, I had some 
doubts because the client might as well send its DNS queries in 'legacy' format 
directly to the GRASP-advertised DNS server.
But clearly the defined solution would enable both approaches.  So it could 
still be good to have this service encoding in GRASP available as a generic 
tool ; it may evolve over time how ASAs/ACP-nodes would use it in practice.

Regards
Esko
 
-Original Message-
From: Brian E Carpenter  
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2022 20:58
To: Esko Dijk ; William Atwood 
; Anima WG 
Subject: Re: [Anima] ANI Autoconfiguration via DNS

On 13-Dec-22 23:53, Esko Dijk wrote:
> Hello Bill,
> 
> You mention "the advantages of using native CBOR encoding".  So this refers 
> to the CBOR encoding of (DNS) service properties, which would avoid parsing 
> of the old DNS format.
> As I understand there's a wish of people to avoid having a DNS data parser in 
> devices in the ACP, since the already-present CBOR parser can then be used 
> instead.
> 
> Now if we would have such DNS-in-CBOR format, it would be more generally 
> useful in IETF and not just in ANIMA. Do you agree?

If it's a 1:1 encoding of DNS format into CBOR, yes, and it sounds like useful 
work in any case.

However, when making a toy implementation of Toerless's proposal when it first 
appeared, I found that it is something different. What he proposes is a great 
simplification of the complexities of DNS-SD, where the semantics are split up 
over SRV,  (or A) and TXT records, all of which need to be parsed to 
extract the semantic content and then merged into a single JSON-like object. 
This complexity is much better done in a single autonomic service agent that 
doesn't need to be in a constrained node. That is the advantage of Toerless's 
proposal and it is really ANIMA scope, IMHO.

Code at 
https://github.com/becarpenter/graspy/blob/master/ASA-examples/GetDNSSD2.py , 
lines 199 through 281. You will see several calls to the DNS resolver and 
analysis of the results;
the client node will just see a single CBOR object (inside a GRASP objective) 
or an error return.

Regards
 Brian
  
> If the format is more generally useful it could be defined in either one of 
> the CBOR, CoRE, or DNSSD WGs.  (Although the latter may not be willing to 
> renew something that's "already good")
> And we need to keep in mind the effort of the CoRE WG (still ongoing 
> draft-ietf-core-href) to define a better encoding of the URI -> the CRI, in 
> CBOR. It isn't trivial to cover all properties of the URI correctly. It takes 
> a lot of effort.
> 
> If we still decide to do this in ANIMA WG context I would just go for the 
> simplest possible subset of DNS-SD that fulfills the use cases and not try to 
> be complete.
> 
> Regards
> Esko
> 
> -Original Message-----
> From: Anima  On Behalf Of William Atwood
> Sent: Monday, November 7, 2022 15:56
> To: Anima WG 
> Subject: [Anima] ANI Autoconfiguration via DNS
> 
> Item 08 in the ANIMA agenda for IETF 115.
> 
> draft-eckert-anima-grasp-dnssd presents standards for the data
> structures (GRASP objectives) that will be required to effect
> autoconfiguration of basic services such as syslog, NTP, and DNS, using
> GRASP.
> 
> draft-eckert-anima-services-dns-autoconfig presents standards for
> actually providing these services, using the objectives defined in
> draft-eckert-anima-grasp-dnssd.
> 
> A strong argument is given in section 1 of
> draft-eckert-anima-grasp-dnssd, showing that the reliability and
> security of GRASP, and the advantages of using native CBOR encoding and
> GRASP flooding, justify the effort to define a GRASP-specific approach,
> rather than just using GRASP to carry the packets of the needed services.
> 
> Clearly these services are essential to any running distributed system,
> and standardizing their on-the-wire representation will likely reduce
> potential problems with incompatible software in the future.
> 
> I therefore encourage the WG to adopt these two drafts as Working Group
> documents.
> 
> Bill Atwood
> 
___
Anima mailing list
Anima@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima


Re: [Anima] ANI Autoconfiguration via DNS

2022-12-13 Thread Brian E Carpenter

On 13-Dec-22 23:53, Esko Dijk wrote:

Hello Bill,

You mention "the advantages of using native CBOR encoding".  So this refers to 
the CBOR encoding of (DNS) service properties, which would avoid parsing of the old DNS 
format.
As I understand there's a wish of people to avoid having a DNS data parser in 
devices in the ACP, since the already-present CBOR parser can then be used 
instead.

Now if we would have such DNS-in-CBOR format, it would be more generally useful 
in IETF and not just in ANIMA. Do you agree?


If it's a 1:1 encoding of DNS format into CBOR, yes, and it sounds like useful 
work in any case.

However, when making a toy implementation of Toerless's proposal when it first 
appeared, I found that it is something different. What he proposes is a great 
simplification of the complexities of DNS-SD, where the semantics are split up 
over SRV,  (or A) and TXT records, all of which need to be parsed to 
extract the semantic content and then merged into a single JSON-like object. 
This complexity is much better done in a single autonomic service agent that 
doesn't need to be in a constrained node. That is the advantage of Toerless's 
proposal and it is really ANIMA scope, IMHO.

Code at 
https://github.com/becarpenter/graspy/blob/master/ASA-examples/GetDNSSD2.py , 
lines 199 through 281. You will see several calls to the DNS resolver and 
analysis of the results;
the client node will just see a single CBOR object (inside a GRASP objective) 
or an error return.

Regards
Brian
 

If the format is more generally useful it could be defined in either one of the CBOR, 
CoRE, or DNSSD WGs.  (Although the latter may not be willing to renew something that's 
"already good")
And we need to keep in mind the effort of the CoRE WG (still ongoing 
draft-ietf-core-href) to define a better encoding of the URI -> the CRI, in 
CBOR. It isn't trivial to cover all properties of the URI correctly. It takes a 
lot of effort.

If we still decide to do this in ANIMA WG context I would just go for the 
simplest possible subset of DNS-SD that fulfills the use cases and not try to 
be complete.

Regards
Esko

-Original Message-
From: Anima  On Behalf Of William Atwood
Sent: Monday, November 7, 2022 15:56
To: Anima WG 
Subject: [Anima] ANI Autoconfiguration via DNS

Item 08 in the ANIMA agenda for IETF 115.

draft-eckert-anima-grasp-dnssd presents standards for the data
structures (GRASP objectives) that will be required to effect
autoconfiguration of basic services such as syslog, NTP, and DNS, using
GRASP.

draft-eckert-anima-services-dns-autoconfig presents standards for
actually providing these services, using the objectives defined in
draft-eckert-anima-grasp-dnssd.

A strong argument is given in section 1 of
draft-eckert-anima-grasp-dnssd, showing that the reliability and
security of GRASP, and the advantages of using native CBOR encoding and
GRASP flooding, justify the effort to define a GRASP-specific approach,
rather than just using GRASP to carry the packets of the needed services.

Clearly these services are essential to any running distributed system,
and standardizing their on-the-wire representation will likely reduce
potential problems with incompatible software in the future.

I therefore encourage the WG to adopt these two drafts as Working Group
documents.

Bill Atwood



___
Anima mailing list
Anima@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima


Re: [Anima] ANI Autoconfiguration via DNS

2022-12-13 Thread Esko Dijk
Hello Bill,

You mention "the advantages of using native CBOR encoding".  So this refers to 
the CBOR encoding of (DNS) service properties, which would avoid parsing of the 
old DNS format. 
As I understand there's a wish of people to avoid having a DNS data parser in 
devices in the ACP, since the already-present CBOR parser can then be used 
instead.

Now if we would have such DNS-in-CBOR format, it would be more generally useful 
in IETF and not just in ANIMA. Do you agree?
If the format is more generally useful it could be defined in either one of the 
CBOR, CoRE, or DNSSD WGs.  (Although the latter may not be willing to renew 
something that's "already good")
And we need to keep in mind the effort of the CoRE WG (still ongoing 
draft-ietf-core-href) to define a better encoding of the URI -> the CRI, in 
CBOR. It isn't trivial to cover all properties of the URI correctly. It takes a 
lot of effort.

If we still decide to do this in ANIMA WG context I would just go for the 
simplest possible subset of DNS-SD that fulfills the use cases and not try to 
be complete.

Regards
Esko

-Original Message-
From: Anima  On Behalf Of William Atwood
Sent: Monday, November 7, 2022 15:56
To: Anima WG 
Subject: [Anima] ANI Autoconfiguration via DNS

Item 08 in the ANIMA agenda for IETF 115.

draft-eckert-anima-grasp-dnssd presents standards for the data 
structures (GRASP objectives) that will be required to effect 
autoconfiguration of basic services such as syslog, NTP, and DNS, using 
GRASP.

draft-eckert-anima-services-dns-autoconfig presents standards for 
actually providing these services, using the objectives defined in 
draft-eckert-anima-grasp-dnssd.

A strong argument is given in section 1 of
draft-eckert-anima-grasp-dnssd, showing that the reliability and 
security of GRASP, and the advantages of using native CBOR encoding and 
GRASP flooding, justify the effort to define a GRASP-specific approach, 
rather than just using GRASP to carry the packets of the needed services.

Clearly these services are essential to any running distributed system, 
and standardizing their on-the-wire representation will likely reduce 
potential problems with incompatible software in the future.

I therefore encourage the WG to adopt these two drafts as Working Group 
documents.

   Bill Atwood

-- 
Dr. J.W. Atwood, Eng. tel:   +1 (514) 848-2424 x3046
Distinguished Professor Emeritus  fax:   +1 (514) 848-2830
Department of Computer Science
and Software Engineering
Concordia University ER 1234  email:william.atw...@concordia.ca
1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd. Westhttp://users.encs.concordia.ca/~bill
Montreal, Quebec Canada H3G 1M8

___
Anima mailing list
Anima@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
___
Anima mailing list
Anima@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima


[Anima] ANI Autoconfiguration via DNS

2022-11-07 Thread William Atwood

Item 08 in the ANIMA agenda for IETF 115.

draft-eckert-anima-grasp-dnssd presents standards for the data 
structures (GRASP objectives) that will be required to effect 
autoconfiguration of basic services such as syslog, NTP, and DNS, using 
GRASP.


draft-eckert-anima-services-dns-autoconfig presents standards for 
actually providing these services, using the objectives defined in 
draft-eckert-anima-grasp-dnssd.


A strong argument is given in section 1 of
draft-eckert-anima-grasp-dnssd, showing that the reliability and 
security of GRASP, and the advantages of using native CBOR encoding and 
GRASP flooding, justify the effort to define a GRASP-specific approach, 
rather than just using GRASP to carry the packets of the needed services.


Clearly these services are essential to any running distributed system, 
and standardizing their on-the-wire representation will likely reduce 
potential problems with incompatible software in the future.


I therefore encourage the WG to adopt these two drafts as Working Group 
documents.


  Bill Atwood

--
Dr. J.W. Atwood, Eng. tel:   +1 (514) 848-2424 x3046
Distinguished Professor Emeritus  fax:   +1 (514) 848-2830
Department of Computer Science
   and Software Engineering
Concordia University ER 1234  email:william.atw...@concordia.ca
1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd. Westhttp://users.encs.concordia.ca/~bill
Montreal, Quebec Canada H3G 1M8

___
Anima mailing list
Anima@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima