Re: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mboned-driad-amt-discovery-09.txt

--===============0251234193077402266==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000be4d9c0599b3fc12"

--000000000000be4d9c0599b3fc12
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Hi Henning,

Thanks for the review.  Answers to your questions below:

On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 2:34 AM Henning Rogge <[email protected]> wrote:

> Nits:
> * If an application with integrated AMT gateway does know the domain
> of the multicast sender, does it make sense to do a DNS-SD query to
> the sender?
>

Did you have a reason in mind for why this would be helpful?

I think nothing in this spec prevents the use of an alternative discovery
mechanism, but nothing occurs to me for what situation would make
this helpful or necessary.


> * In section 4.2.1 (RData Format - Precedence) you discuss that the
> Precedence field is used in the same way as the PREFERENCE field in MX
> RData. In a SRV record the field Priority has the same semantics. Is
> there a reason why you choose not to reuse one of the other names?


I modeled the design on the IPSECKEY RR, because it's a somewhat
similar discovery usage, and I think I just used the same thing they did.
I didn't go through a very extensive search for the best name.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4025#section-3

Thanks and regards,
Jake

--000000000000be4d9c0599b3fc12
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr">Hi Henning,<div><br></div><div>Thanks for=
 the review.=C2=A0 Answers to your questions below:</div></div><br><div cla=
ss=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Sat, Dec 14, 20=
19 at 2:34 AM Henning Rogge &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">hrogge@=
gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=
=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding=
-left:1ex">Nits:<br>
* If an application with integrated AMT gateway does know the domain<br>
of the multicast sender, does it make sense to do a DNS-SD query to<br>
the sender?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Did you have a reason in mi=
nd for why this would be helpful?</div><div><br></div><div>I think nothing =
in this spec prevents the use of an alternative discovery</div><div>mechani=
sm, but nothing occurs to me for what situation would make</div><div>this h=
elpful or necessary.</div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote=
" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);=
padding-left:1ex">
* In section 4.2.1 (RData Format - Precedence) you discuss that the<br>
Precedence field is used in the same way as the PREFERENCE field in MX<br>
RData. In a SRV record the field Priority has the same semantics. Is<br>
there a reason why you choose not to reuse one of the other names?</blockqu=
ote><div><br></div><div>I modeled the design on the IPSECKEY RR, because it=
&#39;s a somewhat</div><div>similar discovery usage, and I think I just use=
d the same thing they did.</div><div>I didn&#39;t go through a very extensi=
ve search for the best name.</div><div><a href=3D"https://tools.ietf.org/ht=
ml/rfc4025#section-3">https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4025#section-3</a></di=
v><div><br></div><div>Thanks and regards,</div><div>Jake</div><div><br></di=
v></div></div>

--000000000000be4d9c0599b3fc12--


--===============0251234193077402266==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

_______________________________________________
MBONED mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned

--===============0251234193077402266==--