Re: [dnssd] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnssd-requirements-04.txt> (Requirements for Scalable DNS-SD/mDNS Extensions) to Informational RFC

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 3/3/15 18:09 , Stuart Cheshire wrote:
On 5 Jan, 2015, at 03:44, Markus Stenberg <markus.stenberg@xxxxxx> wrote:

- REQ5: I am not sure what ‘integrate’ means here. Unidirectional access (SSD -> DNS-SD/mDNS? SSD <- DNS-SD/mDNS?)? Bidirectional?

Is this better?

    REQ5:   SSD should leverage and build upon with current link scope
            DNS-SD/mDNS protocols and deployments.

Stuart Cheshire

The original wording at least implied some level of interoperability, I'm not sure "leverage and build upon" does that. It sound more like code reuse is important rather than interoperability.

    REQ5:   SSD should inter-operate with current link scope
            DNS-SD/mDNS protocols and deployments to the extent
            practicable.

I think my answer to the question is bidirectional would be the best case. But, remember these are competing requirements to be balanced. So, in the worst case ships-in-the-night meets REQ5 and REQ6.


--
================================================
David Farmer               Email: farmer@xxxxxxx
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE     Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952
================================================





[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]