Hi Michael,
I did not want to reopen the bottle on GRASP, and i did not want to
delay ACP spec either with discussions about this naming strategy either.
Therefore my idea was to simply use SRV.est in ACP without having to decide
whether
or not this should or should not become a generic scheme.
The whole explanation of the idea and ask for reserving of the whole
SRV.est is in draft-eckert-anima-grasp-dnssd. Once we would adopt this
and it goes to RFC, that would be an update to GRASP RFC asking for the
IANA update to the registry.
This should give us more time to decide whether this should be the strategy
or if not, it will just be a one-off name for the ACP GRASP objective. No harm
done. just a strange name then.
I also think technically its most logical to have this scheme in GRASP-DNS RFC:
it has the context explaining what these services are, how they can be mapped
to GRASP and thats all the context justifying the naming scheme. If we tried
to move this back into GRASP, this might be more text for explanation than we
want to have this late in the process. And in ACP it's even more a one-off.
Site Note: i started GRASP-DNS primarily to cut down on the complexity of
the GRASP service-discovery options that we would have to document in
ACP/BRSKI - and that feedback came from you too (remember i had one rev with TTL
and service priority etc of ACP and removed that - out of acp into grasp-dns
after
your feedback)..
Cheers
Toerless
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 04:54:53PM -0500, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
> Hi, WG.
>
> I'm the designated expert reviewer for GRASP Object Names.
> IANA asked me to look at autonomic-control-plane. What fun!
>
> I had NO problems with AN_ACP or SRV.est, but the following paragraph
> surprised me:
>
> > Note that the objective format "SRV.<service-name>" is intended to be
> > used for any <service-name> that is an [RFC6335] registered service
> > name. This is a proposed update to the GRASP registry subject to
> > future work and only mentioned here for informational purposed to
> > explain the unique format of the objective name.
>
> I think that if we want to reserve SRV.* for RFC6335 services, then we should
> do exactly that.
>
> The ship hasn't quite sailed on GRASP-15, because it's in gonna be in MISREF
> on a bunch of other documents. It could be done in GRASP-15, or in ACP; I
> don't think that IANA cares, but it would less surprising to have it in
> GRASP-15. I don't know if it's been through AUTH48, I suspect not?
>
> --
> Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
> -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Anima mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
--
---
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
