HI Brian,
thanks, your remark is understood.
However, Esko made the right suggestion that a service name must be
allocated for DNS-SD.
I think that is independent of your protocol draft.
This draft seems the best place to allocate the service names.
My intention is to write a phrase like:
For later discovery of Join Proxy and Registrar server to Join Proxy,
using DNS-SD or mdns the service names are allocated in section x.x
section x.x
Service Name: BRSKI-JP
Transport Protocol(s): UDP
Assignee: Peter van der Stok
Contact: Peter van der Stok
Description: service name of Join Proxy
Reference [this document]
Port Number: to be discovered.
Known Unauthorized: Uses BRSKI porotocol
Service Name: BRSKI-RJP
Transport Protocol(s): UDP
Assignee: Peter van der Stok
Contact: Peter van der Stok
Description: service name of Registrar server to Join Proxy
Reference [this document]
Port Number: to be discovered.
Known Unauthorized: Uses BRSKI porotocol
Agreed?
greetings,
Peter
Brian E Carpenter schreef op 2021-11-30 20:42:
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
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
