Subject: [homenet] New version of homenet naming architecture...

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2016 11:57:28 -0700

I published a new version of my proposed homenet naming architecture
document on Friday.   I updated it based on extensive comments from Stuart
and various other folks, but I haven't yet gone through and systematically
figured out if I got everyone's comments.

The draft is in the datatracker here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lemon-homenet-naming-architecture/
Diffs from -00 here:
https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-lemon-homenet-naming-architecture-01.txt
github:
https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft-lemon-homenet-naming-architecture

I made the document quite a bit more definite, since I didn't hear any
strenuous objections when I presented it last time.   I'd like to propose
adopting the document as a working group work item.   Thoughts?   Do people
think this is a good direction, or did the lack of objection last time
indicate shocked horror rather than acquiescence?

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 05:31:11 -0400

Dear colleagues,

> indicate shocked horror rather than acquiescence?

I've read this draft.  I've got some various reservations and comments
that I'll want to make in more detail, but on the basic question of
whether this is a good foundation for the WG's efforts, I think it
obviously is.

One very large architectural issue in here is the flat&local namespace
and its correspondence to a hierarchical&global namespace.  This seems
to me to be a potentially very tricky mechanism with potential for
inconsistency, and it makes me deeply nervous, particularly since
we're talking about basically using the same names only sometimes in a
local and sometimes in a global context, with different authorities.
My inner database weenie is cringing.  So I want to be clear that
support for adopting the document does not mean that I think even very
fundamental notions in the document can't be thrown over later.  But I
think the WG ought to have change control over such decisions.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 12:31:53 +0200

Thanks for the review!

I agree that we need to make sure we get the global/local bit right.   Bear
in mind that the "flatness" is intended to be the only thing that is ever
seen by a resolver.   The per-link hierarchy is simply a hack to make
hybrid mDNS work without requiring the user to see multiple link names.
>From a database perspective, think of the presented host namespace as being
a view that represents the join of the link-specific mDNS tables and the
internal host namespace.   Of course it's not quite that simple, but that's
the basic idea.

There are definitely some tricks to that that aren't documented in the
architecture document, and indeed I didn't even make clear the idea that
the presented namespace is a view; unfortunately I didn't fully realize
that I'd failed to do that until just now.   :)

On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
wrote:

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