DNS-SD Extensions
charter-ietf-dnssd-01
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2019-03-27
|
01 | Amy Vezza | Responsible AD changed to Éric Vyncke from Terry Manderson |
2018-01-30
|
01 | Amy Vezza | Responsible AD changed to Terry Manderson from Ted Lemon |
2015-10-14
|
01 | (System) | Notify list changed from rdroms@cisco.com,tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk,cheshire@apple.com,kerlyn@ieee.org to cheshire@apple.com, kerlyn@ieee.org |
2013-10-25
|
01 | Cindy Morgan | New version available: charter-ietf-dnssd-01.txt |
2013-10-25
|
00-06 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to Approved from IESG review |
2013-10-25
|
00-06 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the charter |
2013-10-25
|
00-06 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2013-10-25
|
00-06 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Ready for external review" ballot |
2013-10-25
|
00-06 | Cindy Morgan | WG action text was changed |
2013-10-14
|
00-06 | Cindy Morgan | WG review text was changed |
2013-10-14
|
00-06 | Cindy Morgan | WG review text was changed |
2013-10-14
|
00-06 | Ted Lemon | New version available: charter-ietf-dnssd-00-06.txt |
2013-10-14
|
00-05 | Henrik Levkowetz | WG action text was changed |
2013-10-14
|
00-05 | Henrik Levkowetz | Created "Approve" ballot |
2013-10-14
|
00-05 | Henrik Levkowetz | Bringing the replacement document for charter-ietf-dnssdext up to the same state |
2013-10-14
|
00-05 | Henrik Levkowetz | State changed to IESG review from None |
2013-10-10
|
00-05 | Cindy Morgan | WG action text was changed |
2013-10-10
|
00-05 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2013-10-10
|
00-05 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sean Turner |
2013-10-10
|
00-05 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2013-10-10
|
00-05 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2013-10-10
|
00-05 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant |
2013-10-10
|
00-05 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2013-10-10
|
00-05 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot comment] That's a lot of words! Not a required change, but... I think that the two paragraphs before the subheading "Working Group Description" belong … [Ballot comment] That's a lot of words! Not a required change, but... I think that the two paragraphs before the subheading "Working Group Description" belong after the subheading. I would also be inclined to reverse their order. |
2013-10-10
|
00-05 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Adrian Farrel has been changed to No Objection from No Record |
2013-10-10
|
00-05 | Gonzalo Camarillo | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo |
2013-10-10
|
00-05 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] I'm not blocking but I think it'd be good if the charter made some mention of security and privacy, in order to head … [Ballot comment] I'm not blocking but I think it'd be good if the charter made some mention of security and privacy, in order to head off potential discusses on documents later. Doesn't need much, but maybe something like: "Extending discovery beyond current cases can expose discovered devices/services in ways that can be problematic for security or privacy. The WG will consider such issues and attempt to define appropriate mitigations." |
2013-10-10
|
00-05 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2013-10-10
|
00-05 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot comment] That's a lot of words! I think that the two paragraphs before the subheading "Working Group Description" belong after the subheading. I would … [Ballot comment] That's a lot of words! I think that the two paragraphs before the subheading "Working Group Description" belong after the subheading. I would also be inclined to reverse their order. |
2013-10-10
|
00-05 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot comment text updated for Adrian Farrel |
2013-10-10
|
00-05 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot comment] That's a lot of words! I think that the two paragraphs before the subheading "Working Group Description" belong after the subheading. |
2013-10-10
|
00-05 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot comment text updated for Adrian Farrel |
2013-10-10
|
00-05 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot comment] The deliverables are correctly covered in the "proposed milestones" section. They should not appear in the charter text, unless there is a very … [Ballot comment] The deliverables are correctly covered in the "proposed milestones" section. They should not appear in the charter text, unless there is a very good reason. |
2013-10-10
|
00-05 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2013-10-10
|
00-05 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot comment] I continue to believe that the Deliverables section is unnecessary; the Goals section gives plenty of specifics. I just worry about people saying … [Ballot comment] I continue to believe that the Deliverables section is unnecessary; the Goals section gives plenty of specifics. I just worry about people saying stupid things like, "The charter says 3 documents, so splitting one of the documents in two is out-of-charter" or "The charter says Informational, but really this is more like an applicability statement or a BCP and therefore we need to re-charter". I say leave the specific deliverables up to the WG and let the Goals put the appropriate limits. |
2013-10-10
|
00-05 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick |
2013-10-10
|
00-05 | Ted Lemon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ted Lemon |
2013-10-10
|
00-05 | Ted Lemon | Created "Approve" ballot |
2013-10-10
|
00-05 | Ted Lemon | State changed to IESG review from External review |
2013-10-03
|
00-05 | Cindy Morgan | Telechat date has been changed to 2013-10-10 from 2013-09-26 |
2013-10-03
|
00-05 | Cindy Morgan | WG review text was changed |
2013-10-03
|
00-05 | Ted Lemon | State changed to External review from Internal review |
2013-10-02
|
00-05 | Ted Lemon | New version available: charter-ietf-dnssd-00-05.txt |
2013-10-02
|
00-04 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Sean Turner has been changed to Yes from Block |
2013-10-01
|
00-04 | Ted Lemon | New version available: charter-ietf-dnssdext-00-04.txt |
2013-09-26
|
00-03 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot comment] Thank you for addressing my BLOCK question about scoping service discovery. I think getting that work right will be important, but it's appropriate … [Ballot comment] Thank you for addressing my BLOCK question about scoping service discovery. I think getting that work right will be important, but it's appropriate for the working group to flesh out the details (rather than holding up chartering while we chat about it). I trust that Ted and the proposed chairs will add appropriate text about scoping service discovery to the charter if they think doing so would be helpful. I agree with every single AD comment so far (Brian, Barry, Pete and Ted). I think I come down closest to where Pete comes down on remote service discovery (which I might paraphrase as "don't hold the working group to providing remote service discovery, but don't make them design local service discovery with their eyes closed, either"). |
2013-09-26
|
00-03 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Spencer Dawkins has been changed to No Objection from Block |
2013-09-26
|
00-03 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Benoit Claise has been changed to No Objection from No Record |
2013-09-26
|
00-03 | Sean Turner | [Ballot block] Apologies in advance, but I have to ask about this: Bonjour is an Apple registered trademark: https://www.apple.com/legal/intellectual-property/trademark/appletmlist.html Their licensing rules say "Use of … [Ballot block] Apologies in advance, but I have to ask about this: Bonjour is an Apple registered trademark: https://www.apple.com/legal/intellectual-property/trademark/appletmlist.html Their licensing rules say "Use of the Bonjour name or logo requires a separate license from Apple": https://developer.apple.com/softwarelicensing/agreements/bonjour.html For RFC 6762 & 6763, there were two authors both from Apple so you could say they're using their own trademark so no need for a declaration. This charter is different thought (isn't it) in that it's not authored by just by Apple employees. Do we need a declaration from Apple that it's okay for the IETF to use "Bonjour" in the charter? |
2013-09-26
|
00-03 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Block, has been recorded for Sean Turner |
2013-09-26
|
00-03 | Gonzalo Camarillo | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo |
2013-09-26
|
00-03 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot comment] When reading the charter, I took the following notes: What are the services that DNSSDEXT will NOT be discovering: single link, multiple links/multiple … [Ballot comment] When reading the charter, I took the following notes: What are the services that DNSSDEXT will NOT be discovering: single link, multiple links/multiple subnets, remote service discovery, neighbouring or non-neighbouring links, etc...? Basically, it's everything: my home, my neighbors' homes, my street, my city, my company within my VPN, ... Where do we stop? Trying to picture this work within the homenet WG, dnssdext would do an excellent job if it would provide the means to discover services within the borders (term used in the homenet architecture doc). Now, reading the ballot, my comment fits exactly Brian's BLOCK, and Joel's ABSTAIN (I guess) Regards, Benoit, really hesitating between a COMMENT and a BLOCK. I want to hear the discussion first |
2013-09-26
|
00-03 | Benoît Claise | Ballot comment text updated for Benoit Claise |
2013-09-26
|
00-03 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot comment] The supplied -03 version of the charter addresses my concerns adequately. Thank you. |
2013-09-26
|
00-03 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Brian Haberman has been changed to No Objection from Block |
2013-09-26
|
00-03 | Ted Lemon | Added charter milestone "Formation of the WG", due September 2013 |
2013-09-26
|
00-03 | Ted Lemon | Added charter milestone "Adopt requirements draft as WG document", due October 2013 |
2013-09-26
|
00-03 | Ted Lemon | Added charter milestone "Submit requirements draft to the IESG as an Informational RFC", due January 2014 |
2013-09-26
|
00-03 | Ted Lemon | Added charter milestone "Adopt wide-area service discovery solution draft as WG document ", due March 2014 |
2013-09-26
|
00-03 | Ted Lemon | Added charter milestone "Adopt Informational document on the problems and challenges arising for zeroconf and unicast DNS name services", due March 2014 |
2013-09-26
|
00-03 | Ted Lemon | Added charter milestone "Submit wide-area service discovery solution draft to the IESG as Standards Track RFC ", due September 2014 |
2013-09-26
|
00-03 | Ted Lemon | Added charter milestone "Submit the zeroconf and unicast DNS "problems and challenges" draft to the IESG as Informational.", due September 2014 |
2013-09-26
|
00-03 | Ted Lemon | New version available: charter-ietf-dnssdext-00-03.txt |
2013-09-26
|
00-02 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] I support doing this, but have a comment on Spencer's comment. If geopriv concepts are used by the wg, (which might well be … [Ballot comment] I support doing this, but have a comment on Spencer's comment. If geopriv concepts are used by the wg, (which might well be a fine idea), then I hope that is done with the goal of appropriately protecting privacy for the node doing discovery. One could argue that the protocols adopted by geopriv make the default assumption that targets are ok with their identity and location being known to parts of the network, which is perhaps not appropriate here. |
2013-09-26
|
00-02 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2013-09-26
|
00-02 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant |
2013-09-26
|
00-02 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2013-09-26
|
00-02 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot comment] This is timely and important. I hope that the issues raised by other ADs can be resolved quickly so that work proceeds. |
2013-09-26
|
00-02 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
2013-09-26
|
00-02 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot comment] >> not necessarily on directly connected links, e.g., on links elsewhere on the same site, or links at a remote site. our history … [Ballot comment] >> not necessarily on directly connected links, e.g., on links elsewhere on the same site, or links at a remote site. our history with local/site/enterprise/interdomain/internet scoping is ambivalent. would greatly like to see this rule far flung activities out of scope. a single adminstrative domain or span of network control or what have you would be tollerable. |
2013-09-26
|
00-02 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Abstain, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2013-09-25
|
00-02 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot block] This would be a Discuss, if we Discussed charters. I think this work is important and plan to ballot as "yes" after chatting … [Ballot block] This would be a Discuss, if we Discussed charters. I think this work is important and plan to ballot as "yes" after chatting about one point ... I don't have a good feeling about the proposal for scoped service discovery, especially since "site" is given as one of the possible scopes. When http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3879.txt formally deprecated site-local addresses,one of the justifications given was Section 2.5 of that RFC, "Site is an Ill-Defined Concept", which makes for entertaining reading. I'm not sure why the problems described wouldn't apply to service discovery with a "site" scope today. I would encourage people working on scoped service discovery to think about what GeoPriv civic location elements already defined in places like http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4119#section-2.2.1 might make sense as service discovery scopes ("floor" is defined, for example). Is such a list of scopes something that should be included in this charter? Or something the working group should figure out after it's chartered? |
2013-09-25
|
00-02 | Spencer Dawkins | Ballot discuss text updated for Spencer Dawkins |
2013-09-25
|
00-02 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot comment] I agree with every single AD comment so far (Brian, Barry, Pete and Ted). I think I come down closest to where Pete … [Ballot comment] I agree with every single AD comment so far (Brian, Barry, Pete and Ted). I think I come down closest to where Pete comes down on remote service discovery (which I might paraphrase as "don't hold the working group to providing remote service discovery, but don't make them design local service discovery with their eyes closed, either"). |
2013-09-25
|
00-02 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot block] This would be a Discuss, if we Discussed charters. I think this work is important and plan to ballot as "yes" after chatting … [Ballot block] This would be a Discuss, if we Discussed charters. I think this work is important and plan to ballot as "yes" after chatting about one point ... I don't have a good feeling about the proposal for scoped service discovery, especially since "site" is given as one of the possible scopes. When http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3879.txt formally deprecated site-local addresses,one of the justifications given was Section 2.5 of that RFC, "Site is an Ill-Defined Concept", which makes for entertaining reading. I would encourage people working on scoped service discovery to think about what GeoPriv civic location elements already defined in places like http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4119#section-2.2.1 might make sense as service discovery scopes ("floor" is defined, for example). Is such a list of scopes something that should be included in this charter? Or something the working group should figure out after it's chartered? |
2013-09-25
|
00-02 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Block, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2013-09-25
|
00-02 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot comment] I understand Brian and Barry's concerns, but I would hate for the WG not to consider the implications of remote discovery during the … [Ballot comment] I understand Brian and Barry's concerns, but I would hate for the WG not to consider the implications of remote discovery during the design phase: Certain choices may preclude adding on remote discovery. Perhaps it would suffice to simply make it clear that this can be considered, but may be tossed overboard and is not a requirement. Goal 3: Change "To publish an Informational RFC that documents" to simply "To document" and "which should include" to "including". I don't think we should care whether this is a separate document, part of an applicability statement section of the protocol document, or something else entirely. I also don't think the Deliverables need to be spelled out so specifically. The goals section is sufficient. I would strike the Deliverables section entirely. Typos: Any solution developed by the dnssdext WG wil not conflict... "will" (D) Mesh networks "(E)" |
2013-09-25
|
00-02 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick |
2013-09-25
|
00-02 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] I had a similar thought to Brian's, and I support his blocking comment. I also found the extensive background and exposition to be … [Ballot comment] I had a similar thought to Brian's, and I support his blocking comment. I also found the extensive background and exposition to be a bit longer-winded than is probably necessary, and I ask that you consider some significant editing and trimming. That said, it's organized well enough that it's understandable, so this is a non-blocking comment. If such editing doesn't happen, I won't raise any further objection. |
2013-09-25
|
00-02 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2013-09-23
|
00-02 | Ted Lemon | Notification list changed to rdroms@cisco.com,tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk,cheshire@apple.com,kerlyn@ieee.org |
2013-09-23
|
00-02 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot block] Having sat through both BoFs on this subject, I am a little surprised by the inclusion of "remote service discovery" in the proposed … [Ballot block] Having sat through both BoFs on this subject, I am a little surprised by the inclusion of "remote service discovery" in the proposed charter. That topic received little/no discussion during the BoFs and it is such an advanced subject, that I fear it may distract the WG from its core focus. This is especially true when you consider the security/privacy ramifications of that level of service for a zero-config network. I would propose that remote service discovery be taken out and be a potential subject for a re-chartering effort once the core deliverables are completed. |
2013-09-23
|
00-02 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Block, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2013-09-23
|
00-02 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2013-09-14
|
00-02 | Ted Lemon | Responsible AD changed to Ted Lemon |
2013-09-14
|
00-02 | Ted Lemon | Ballot writeup was changed |
2013-09-14
|
00-02 | Ted Lemon | [Ballot comment] I think the proposed work is very important and should proceed. |
2013-09-14
|
00-02 | Ted Lemon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ted Lemon |
2013-09-14
|
00-02 | Ted Lemon | Ballot has been sent |
2013-09-14
|
00-02 | Ted Lemon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ted Lemon |
2013-09-14
|
00-02 | Ted Lemon | Ballot writeup was changed |
2013-09-14
|
00-02 | Ted Lemon | Ballot writeup was generated |
2013-09-14
|
00-02 | Ted Lemon | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2013-09-26 |
2013-09-14
|
00-02 | Ted Lemon | WG action text was changed |
2013-09-14
|
00-02 | Ted Lemon | WG review text was changed |
2013-09-14
|
00-02 | Ted Lemon | Created "Ready for external review" ballot |
2013-09-14
|
00-02 | Ted Lemon | State changed to Internal review from Informal IESG review |
2013-09-14
|
00-02 | Ted Lemon | New version available: charter-ietf-dnssdext-00-02.txt |
2013-09-14
|
00-01 | Ted Lemon | New version available: charter-ietf-dnssdext-00-01.txt |
2013-09-14
|
00-00 | Ted Lemon | Initial review time expires 2013-09-21 |
2013-09-14
|
00-00 | Ted Lemon | State changed to Informal IESG review from Not currently under review |
2013-09-14
|
00-00 | Ted Lemon | New version available: charter-ietf-dnssdext-00-00.txt |