Skip to main content

Selecting Labels for Use with Conventional DNS and Other Resolution Systems in DNS-Based Service Discovery

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:


From: The IESG <>
To: IETF-Announce <>
Cc: The IESG <>,,,,, Suzanne Woolf <>,,
Subject: Document Action: 'On Interoperation of Labels Among Conventional DNS and Other Resolution Systems' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-dnssd-mdns-dns-interop-04.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'On Interoperation of Labels Among Conventional DNS and Other
   Resolution Systems'
  (draft-ietf-dnssd-mdns-dns-interop-04.txt) as Informational RFC

This document is the product of the Extensions for Scalable DNS Service
Discovery  Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Suresh Krishnan and Terry Manderson.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:

Ballot Text

Technical Summary

   Despite its name, DNS-Based Service Discovery can use naming systems
   other than the Domain Name System when looking for services.
   Moreover, when it uses the DNS, DNS-Based Service Discovery uses the
   full capability of DNS, rather than using a subset of available
   octets.  In order for DNS-SD to be used effectively in environments
   where multiple different name systems and conventions for their
   operation are in use, it is important to attend to differences in the
   underlying technology and operational environment.  This memo
   presents an outline of the requirements for selection of labels for
   conventional DNS and other resolution systems when they are expected
   to interoperate in this manner.

Working Group Summary

    Early in the life of the draft there was extensive discussion (with
    a very few people supplying most of the bits) on clarifying the
    scope of the draft and sometimes-diverging terminology, since DNS
    operators and implementers think of interoperability issues between
    name resolution protocols differently than operators and
    implementers of mDNS or other such protocols. Those confusions
    appear to have been resolved in the final draft.

    The primary difference between the individual -00 version and the
    current one is extensive explanatory text on the nature of the
    problem being addressed and some of those divergent uses of

Document Quality

    This document is intended as advice to implementers, to promote
    interoperability among multiple protocols. Review in DNSOP was
    requested, as it discusses operational conventions about the public


    Shepherd: Suzanne Woolf
    AD: Terry Manderson

RFC Editor Note