Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-zeroconf-reqts-10.txt

From: Aidan Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 11:57:55 +1000

Hi All,

draft-zeroconf-reqts-09.txt went through WG last call, but has
encountered objections from the IESG particularly relating to
security.  Questions were also raised about the usefulness of
the sections on naming in evaluating candidate zeroconf name
resolution protocols.

I agreed to take over editing of the document from Myron Hattig.
Thanks go to Myron for his work on the previous revisions.

I would like to restart discussion on the mailing list.
Please read and comment on the draft.  Post your comments
to the mailing list, preferrably with a concrete suggestion
as to how to improve the draft.  (text would be lovely!)

In particular, you'll find some sections contain a paragraph
soliciting input (search for the word "solicit").
Those sections are:

  3.1.2 Relationship to other unicast IP address assignment mechanisms
        (in the section on IP interface configuration)

  3.2.2 Relationship to the DNS
        (in the section on name resolution)

  4. Security Considerations

This a summary of the changes I have made:

  - I tweaked some of the first sections of the document.

  - I replaced the "Conflicts and State Changes Requirement" section
    with a section called "Maintaining Consistent Network State"

  - I re-introduced the scenario section, splitting it out from
    requirements.  I know this potentially makes things more verbose,
    but I hope the result isn't too bad.

    The benefit of doing this is that there are now some *general*
    requirements that may be applicable to other zeroconf protocls
    (ie not just the 4 we were focussing on)

    This resulted in an increased number of requirements,
    particularly in the addressing and naming section.

  - I applied the scenario section requirements to
      * IP addressing
      * the naming section
    but left the
      * multicast
      * and service discovery section
    pretty much untouched.  This was because they are pretty good, and
    I've just had enough typing on the thing this week.. :)
    They will need updating to give them a consistent "look & feel".

  - I added a couple of sections "Relationship to (DNS|DHCP)" 

  - I re-did the security section to address the objections from
    the IESG.  It is somewhat shorter, and less detailed.  It seems
    to me that a lot of the material in the previous section would
    have been better covered in the per-protocol documents.

    It really wasn't possible for me to come up with the canonical
    security section.  I have tried to map out the landscape, and have
    generated some questions to try and get feedback from people.

    I wrote down three security scenarios which I hope should generate
    some discussion.

regards
	aidan
____
:wq!