Subject: [dnssd] Last call update to draft-ietf-dnssd-srp

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2021 23:18:05 -0400

I've posted a draft that I believe addresses all last call comments that
came up. Most of the comments were relatively minor, but there are a few
that are significant.

First, in implementing support for dnssd service subtypes for SRP
replication, it became clear that it was a problem to support updates to
subtypes where the update adds a subtype but doesn't mention other subtypes
added by a previous update, or removes subtypes. We could have done it, but
it added significant complexity. So this impacted the SRP document in the
sense that we needed to explicitly describe the behavior. The behavior that
SRP requires now is that if any subtype PTR records exist pointing to a
service instance that's being updated, and those subtypes are not present
in the update, they are implicitly removed.

The second big change is that Esko pointed out that the text describing the
sleep proxy isn't really very consistent with the rest of the document, and
indeed is somewhat incomplete. There isn't an easy way to handle
this—either we have to stop and fix it, which might delay publication for a
long time, or we have to remove it.

Because there's another document that describes the edns0 owner option, on
which the sleep proxy depends, and that document is nowhere near
publication (it's been expired since 2018), I think the right answer is to
work on that document, and update it to add sleep proxy support to SRP,
rather than keeping sleep proxy support in the base SRP document. Obviously
the working group should consider whether or not we collectively agree with
this approach.

I unfortunately forgot about Esko's rather detailed editorial review when I
produced the -11 document, so I had to do a -12 a today to address his
editorial comments. These substantially improve the readability of the
document—thanks for doing that, Esko!

I am on vacation this coming week, so I won't be here to discuss this, but
feel free to comment immediately, and I'll review and respond when I get
back.

Thanks!

BTW, you can see a diff from -10 to -12 here:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=http://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-dnssd-srp-10.txt&url2=http://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-dnssd-srp-12.txt

---

From: Abtin Keshavarzian <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2021 10:17:37 -0700

Thanks Ted.
I read through all the new changes/diffs and the latest draft. They all
LGTM.
Abtin.

On Sun, Oct 24, 2021 at 8:18 PM Ted Lemon <[email-masked]> wrote:

> The second big change is that Esko pointed out that the text describing
> the sleep proxy isn't really very consistent with the rest of the document,
> and indeed is somewhat incomplete. There isn't an easy way to handle
> I unfortunately forgot about Esko's rather detailed editorial review when
> I produced the -11 document, so I had to do a -12 a today to address his
> _______________________________________________
> dnssd mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnssd
>

---

From: Jonathan Hui <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2021 13:06:06 -0700

Thanks for the update, Ted. I have reviewed the diff between -12 and -10
and the changes all look good to me.

Enjoy your vacation!

--
Jonathan Hui

---

From: David Schinazi <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2021 15:36:05 -0700

Thank you Ted for the long-awaited update :-)

As discussed a couple months back [1], this update was required to conclude
the working group last call.

Here are our next steps for this draft:
- the chairs will let folks comment on the latest revision for the next two
weeks (please comment on the list!)
- we'll briefly discuss this draft at IETF 112 (DNSSD is currently
scheduled on the last session on Friday 2021-11-12)
- assuming no objections arise between now and then, the chairs will then
submit the draft to the IESG for publication

Thanks,
David

[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnssd/9JloygQVSzIpzlxbDf-wGsKqpWs/