Subject: [P2PSIP] DNS-SD progress

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 15:27:27 -0700

It appears the dns-sd stuff is close to done. We might reconsider if  
we want to put this back in RELOAD.

Begin forwarded message:

> From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
> Date: November 4, 2008 7:28:19 AM MST (CA)
> To: IETF-Announce <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Last Call: draft-cheshire-dnsext-dns-sd (DNS-Based Service   
> Discovery) to Informational RFC
> Reply-To: [email-masked]
>
> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to  
> consider
> the following document:
>
> - 'DNS-Based Service Discovery '
>   <draft-cheshire-dnsext-dns-sd-05.txt> as an Informational RFC
>
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> final comments on this action.  Please send substantive comments to  
> the
> [email-masked] mailing lists by 2008-12-02. Exceptionally,
> comments may be sent to [email-masked] instead. In either case, please
> retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>
> The file can be obtained via
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-cheshire-dnsext-dns- 
> sd-05.txt
>
>
> IESG discussion can be tracked via
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=9784&rfc_flag=0
>
> _______________________________________________
> IETF-Announce mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce

_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip

---

From: Dan York <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 20:26:41 -0500

Cullen,

I ask this question purely because I don't honestly know the answer -  
what is the policy within RAI or the larger IETF of including  
references to *Informational* RFCs within drafts intended to be  
*Standards track* RFCs?  Obviously I know it's done... I'm thinking  
for instance of any number of drafts that reference P-Asserted- 
Identity out of Informational RFC 3325. I'm just wondering what the  
policy/convention/thinking is in general.

Thanks,
Dan

On Nov 5, 2008, at 5:27 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:

>> Subject: Last Call: draft-cheshire-dnsext-dns-sd (DNS-Based  
>> Service  Discovery) to Informational RFC
>> Reply-To: [email-masked]
>>
>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-cheshire-dnsext-dns-sd-05.txt
>>
>>

-- 
Dan York, CISSP, Director of Emerging Communication Technology
Office of the CTO    Voxeo Corporation     [email-masked]
Phone: +1-407-455-5859  Skype: danyork  http://www.voxeo.com
Blogs: http://blogs.voxeo.com  http://www.disruptivetelephony.com

Build voice applications based on open standards.
Find out how at http://www.voxeo.com/free

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 06:57:27 -0600

Dan, this is is a hard question and I am going to take my best shot in  
5 minutes at an answer that is at least 90% correct.

When a PS draft called X has a normative reference to draft Y that is  
informational, it gets called it a downref. The downrefs are allowed  
under certain conditions. The long answer is "it's complicated", the  
short answer is that if the parts of Y that X needs are suitable for  
PS, then it's sometimes OK. It's never easy or a slam dunk. Note that  
a non normative reference is not a problem.

This leads to the question of what makes a reference normative.  
Roughly speaking, if you can not correctly implement X without the  
information in Y, it is likely a normative reference. If Y just has  
information that might help you understand the problems space, or  
better understand how things work or things that you should consider  
but you could in theory at least figure out a correct implementation  
without Y, then it is probably informational.

You can read more about it in RFC 3967

Cullen <a rare email send in my RAI AD role>

On Nov 5, 2008, at 19:26 , Dan York wrote:

> Cullen,
>
> I ask this question purely because I don't honestly know the answer  
> - what is the policy within RAI or the larger IETF of including  
>> It appears the dns-sd stuff is close to done. We might reconsider  
>> if we want to put this back in RELOAD.
>>
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>>> final comments on this action.  Please send substantive comments  
>>> to the