From owner-zeroconf@merit.edu Tue Sep 5 15:10:23 2000 Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11530 for ; Tue, 5 Sep 2000 15:10:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 2F6A95DDA2; Tue, 5 Sep 2000 15:10:04 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: zeroconf-outgoing@merit.edu Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 1D0E05DDA0; Tue, 5 Sep 2000 15:10:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mercury.Sun.COM (mercury.Sun.COM [192.9.25.1]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AD085DDE0 for ; Tue, 5 Sep 2000 15:10:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sunmail1.Sun.COM ([129.145.1.2]) by mercury.Sun.COM (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA17186; Tue, 5 Sep 2000 12:09:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jurassic.eng.sun.com (jurassic.Eng.Sun.COM [129.146.84.31]) by sunmail1.Sun.COM (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1/ENSMAIL,v1.6.1-sunmail1) with ESMTP id MAA19327; Tue, 5 Sep 2000 12:09:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lillen (lillen.Eng.Sun.COM [129.146.86.161]) by jurassic.eng.sun.com (8.11.1.Beta0+Sun/8.11.1.Beta0) with SMTP id e85J9pk905589; Tue, 5 Sep 2000 12:09:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 12:09:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Erik Nordmark Reply-To: Erik Nordmark Subject: Re: zeroconf wg actions: mailing list decisions To: Erik Guttman Cc: zeroconf@merit.edu, erik.guttman@germany.sun.com, cheshire@apple.com, narten@raleigh.ibm.com, Erik Nordmark Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Sender: owner-zeroconf@merit.edu Precedence: bulk > The definition I propose is: > > A zeroconf protocol requires no a prior configuration. A host > obtains all configuration a posteriori, on the basis of > interactions with other hosts or routers on the network, over > time. > > A non-zeroconf protocol requires configuration (for instance > user configuration, configuration burned into hardware, > configuration obtained from a client-server dynamic configuration > protocol, etc.) Erik, The "burned into hardware" might be misleading since I think we do want to consider IPv6 stateless address autoconfiguration (driven from the IEEE address burned into hardware) as a zeroconf protocol. Are you trying to capture IP level configuration that is burned in? (e.g. phones where a SIM hard has the DNS server addresses burned in when the phone/SIM is bought) If so it might make sense to somehow exclude e.g. link-layer configuration from the "burned in" discussion. Erik From owner-zeroconf@merit.edu Tue Sep 5 17:12:43 2000 Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA13931 for ; Tue, 5 Sep 2000 17:12:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 4619B5DDF0; Tue, 5 Sep 2000 17:12:30 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: zeroconf-outgoing@merit.edu Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 34CD05DDEE; Tue, 5 Sep 2000 17:12:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sol.extremenetworks.com (sol.extremenetworks.com [216.52.8.2]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5697E5DDE0 for ; Tue, 5 Sep 2000 17:12:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mosquito.extremenetworks.com ([10.0.8.126]) by sol.extremenetworks.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2650.21) id SKW7BLWZ; Tue, 5 Sep 2000 14:11:43 -0700 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000905170620.00b128e0@sol.extremenetworks.com> X-Sender: rja@sol.extremenetworks.com (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 17:07:23 -0400 To: Erik Nordmark From: RJ Atkinson Subject: Re: zeroconf wg actions: mailing list decisions Cc: zeroconf@merit.edu In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-zeroconf@merit.edu Precedence: bulk At 15:09 05/09/00, Erik Nordmark wrote: >The "burned into hardware" might be misleading since I think we do >want to consider IPv6 stateless address autoconfiguration (driven >from the IEEE address burned into hardware) as a zeroconf protocol. Agree. If its burned into the Ethernet chipset, it isn't user configuration, so would be in-the-zone to be considered zeroconf. Ran From owner-zeroconf@merit.edu Tue Sep 19 08:11:30 2000 Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id IAA13290 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 08:11:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 40B285DDB3; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 08:11:15 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: zeroconf-outgoing@merit.edu Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 2F50A5DDA9; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 08:11:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hotmail.com (law-f263.hotmail.com [209.185.130.179]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9DF05DD8E for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 08:11:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 05:11:13 -0700 Received: from 192.11.222.101 by lw1fd.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 12:11:13 GMT X-Originating-IP: [192.11.222.101] From: "tarun matta" To: zeroconf@merit.edu Subject: is anybody there Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 12:11:13 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Sep 2000 12:11:13.0366 (UTC) FILETIME=[B4381F60:01C02232] Sender: owner-zeroconf@merit.edu Precedence: bulk hi, i am tarun & i work for lucent i am new to this group. i want to know is there any activity going on in this WG. if yes,then what are we working on & what are our aims in the near future? also, how can i contribute to the group? is there anything specific i must read? regards, tarun _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. From owner-zeroconf@merit.edu Tue Sep 19 08:28:15 2000 Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id IAA13792 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 08:28:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 2F72F5DD9F; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 08:28:05 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: zeroconf-outgoing@merit.edu Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 1F7855DD99; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 08:28:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mercury.Sun.COM (mercury.Sun.COM [192.9.25.1]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF0915DD8E for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 08:28:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from efra05-home.Germany.Sun.COM ([129.157.43.5]) by mercury.Sun.COM (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA06830; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 05:28:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vayne (remote-nl-31.Holland.Sun.COM [129.159.209.113]) by efra05-home.Germany.Sun.COM (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8/ENSMAIL,v1.9) with SMTP id OAA28890; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 14:27:59 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 14:37:38 +0200 (MET DST) From: Erik Guttman Reply-To: Erik Guttman Subject: Re: is anybody there To: tarun matta Cc: zeroconf@merit.edu In-Reply-To: "Your message with ID" Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Sender: owner-zeroconf@merit.edu Precedence: bulk > hi, > i am tarun & i work for lucent > i am new to this group. > i want to know is there any activity > going on in this WG. Yes, there is work going on. > if yes,then what are we working on > & what are our aims in the near > future? See http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/zeroconf-charter.html > also, how can i contribute to the group? Things you can do: 1. Read the WG document and others as they are published and send your comments. Specifically: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-zeroconf-reqts-05.txt 2. Send comments on the charter to the list. Is there anything we should be working on that we are not considering. > is there anything specific i must read? 3. Very important: Read the archives of the WG mailing list. http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/zeroconf/ Erik From owner-zeroconf@merit.edu Wed Sep 20 18:41:23 2000 Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id SAA09950 for ; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 18:41:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 727A75DDE5; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 18:41:08 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: zeroconf-outgoing@merit.edu Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 610425DDDF; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 18:41:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hilton.cec.wustl.edu (hilton.cec.wustl.edu [128.252.21.4]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21D705DDD4 for ; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 18:41:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (bac1@localhost) by hilton.cec.wustl.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id RAA02967; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 17:41:00 -0500 (CDT) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 17:41:00 -0500 (CDT) From: Brian Curtis To: Erik Guttman Cc: tarun matta , zeroconf@merit.edu Subject: Re: is anybody there In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-zeroconf@merit.edu Precedence: bulk remove from list On Tue, 19 Sep 2000, Erik Guttman wrote: |> hi, |> i am tarun & i work for lucent |> i am new to this group. |> i want to know is there any activity |> going on in this WG. | |Yes, there is work going on. | |> if yes,then what are we working on |> & what are our aims in the near |> future? | |See http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/zeroconf-charter.html | |> also, how can i contribute to the group? | |Things you can do: | | 1. Read the WG document and others as they are published and | send your comments. Specifically: | http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-zeroconf-reqts-05.txt | | 2. Send comments on the charter to the list. Is there anything | we should be working on that we are not considering. | |> is there anything specific i must read? | | 3. Very important: Read the archives of the WG mailing list. | http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/zeroconf/ | |Erik | | | | | From owner-zeroconf@merit.edu Wed Sep 20 18:41:32 2000 Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id SAA09965 for ; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 18:41:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id A55CB5DDE7; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 18:41:23 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: zeroconf-outgoing@merit.edu Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 9458B5DDDF; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 18:41:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hilton.cec.wustl.edu (hilton.cec.wustl.edu [128.252.21.4]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2E425DDD4 for ; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 18:41:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (bac1@localhost) by hilton.cec.wustl.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id RAA03047; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 17:41:20 -0500 (CDT) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 17:41:19 -0500 (CDT) From: Brian Curtis To: tarun matta Cc: zeroconf@merit.edu Subject: Re: is anybody there In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-zeroconf@merit.edu Precedence: bulk remove from list On Tue, 19 Sep 2000, tarun matta wrote: |hi, |i am tarun & i work for lucent |i am new to this group. |i want to know is there any activity |going on in this WG. | |if yes,then what are we working on |& what are our aims in the near |future? |also, how can i contribute to the |group? |is there anything specific i must |read? | |regards, |tarun |_________________________________________________________________________ |Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. | |Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at |http://profiles.msn.com. | | | From owner-zeroconf@merit.edu Mon Sep 25 03:23:42 2000 Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id DAA28274 for ; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 03:23:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id A05F95DDA3; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 03:23:32 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: zeroconf-outgoing@merit.edu Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 71C475DD97; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 03:23:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mercury.Sun.COM (mercury.Sun.COM [192.9.25.1]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7921D5DDA3 for ; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 03:23:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from efra05-home.Germany.Sun.COM ([129.157.43.5]) by mercury.Sun.COM (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA29953; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 00:23:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vayne (muc-isdn-1 [129.157.164.101]) by efra05-home.Germany.Sun.COM (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8/ENSMAIL,v1.9) with SMTP id JAA14425; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 09:23:20 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 09:33:01 +0200 (MET DST) From: Erik Guttman Reply-To: Erik Guttman Subject: WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-zeroconf-reqts-05.txt To: zeroconf@merit.edu Cc: erik.guttman@germany.sun.com, cheshire@apple.com, myron.hattig@intel.com Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Sender: owner-zeroconf@merit.edu Precedence: bulk This is a notice of a Working Group Last Call on the document http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-zeroconf-reqts-05.txt Please send your comments in the next two weeks. At that time (October 9) we will evaluate the working group consensus on the document, if necessary revise the document, then submit it to the IESG for publication as an Informational RFC. Erik From owner-zeroconf@merit.edu Mon Sep 25 09:20:51 2000 Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id JAA02863 for ; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 09:20:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id A3D855DDBB; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 09:20:43 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: zeroconf-outgoing@merit.edu Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 92A3E5DD97; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 09:20:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sol.extremenetworks.com (sol.extremenetworks.com [216.52.8.2]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BAD55DD96 for ; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 09:20:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mosquito.extremenetworks.com ([10.0.8.108]) by sol.extremenetworks.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2650.21) id TMP320LB; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 06:19:30 -0700 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000925090150.00aac3f0@sc-sol-04.extremenetworks.com> X-Sender: rja@sc-sol-04.extremenetworks.com (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 09:15:01 -0400 To: Erik Guttman From: RJ Atkinson Subject: Re: WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-zeroconf-reqts-05.txt Cc: zeroconf@merit.edu In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-zeroconf@merit.edu Precedence: bulk At 03:33 25/09/00, you wrote: >This is a notice of a Working Group Last Call on the document > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-zeroconf-reqts-05.txt > >Please send your comments in the next two weeks. At that time >(October 9) we will evaluate the working group consensus on the >document, if necessary revise the document, then submit it to the >IESG for publication as an Informational RFC. Section 3 should be rewritten to be consistent with and specifically address the all of the kinds of threats that are outlined in draft-rescorla-sec-cons-01.txt. If the author believes a specific threat from that I-D is not applicable, then this should be stated and the rationale for that belief given explicitly. The revised text should use security terminology that is consistent with both RFC-2828 and also draft-rescorla-sec-cons-01.txt. Otherwise, the draft looks fine to me. Ran rja@inet.org From owner-zeroconf@merit.edu Mon Sep 25 19:48:45 2000 Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id TAA17584 for ; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 19:48:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 71AC35DD90; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 19:48:36 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: zeroconf-outgoing@merit.edu Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 586D45DDAB; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 19:48:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from macbeth.zyan.com (macbeth.zyan.com [206.253.0.52]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B4435DD90 for ; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 19:48:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from clarson ([208.41.7.181]) by macbeth.zyan.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA22502 for ; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 16:48:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <007201c0274b$a0e13c80$b50729d0@clarson> From: "Charles Larson" To: Subject: Configuring devices without consoles Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 16:52:09 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_006F_01C02710.F181CEB0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 Sender: owner-zeroconf@merit.edu Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_006F_01C02710.F181CEB0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I have a problem which it seems this group partially addresses. I would = like some comments on whether the topic should be considered here or = elsewhere. Or some pointers if anybody is aware of a solution. We build industrial instrumentation which has an ethernet port. The = device may or may not have a console. In the commercial world, I = suppose this would apply to a network printer. I want to be able to = configure that device, possibly with a static IP address, possibly for = DHCP without needing a console. In other words I want to configure it = over the ethernet. The trouble is that if it is unconfigured or = configured incorrectly, I cant talk to it. I seems to me that the zero configuration protocol solves this or could = solve it. Once the device has configured itself using zeroconfig, we = can communicate with it to set its regular internet configuration = parameters. It seems to me that there are some considerations which are necessary in = the zeroconfig protocol to insure that it can be used for this. = Locating the devices would be part of the problem. But I think that is = just service location, which is already considered. I suppose actually = configuring the device is outside of the scope of this group. Comments? Thanks, Charles Larson. ------=_NextPart_000_006F_01C02710.F181CEB0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I have a problem which it seems this = group=20 partially addresses.  I would like some comments on whether the = topic=20 should be considered here or elsewhere.  Or some pointers if = anybody is=20 aware of a solution.
 
We build industrial instrumentation = which has an=20 ethernet port.  The device may or may not have a console.  In = the=20 commercial world, I suppose this would apply to a network printer.  = I want=20 to be able to configure that device, possibly with a static IP address, = possibly=20 for DHCP without needing a console.  In other words I want to = configure it=20 over the ethernet.  The trouble is that if it is unconfigured or = configured=20 incorrectly, I cant talk to it.
 
I seems to me that the zero = configuration protocol=20 solves this or could solve it.  Once the device has configured = itself using=20 zeroconfig, we can communicate with it to set its regular internet=20 configuration parameters.
 
It seems to me that there are some = considerations=20 which are necessary in the zeroconfig protocol to insure that it can be = used for=20 this.  Locating the devices would be part of the problem.  But = I think=20 that is just service location, which is already considered.  I = suppose=20 actually configuring the device is outside of the scope of this=20 group.
 
Comments?
 
Thanks,
Charles = Larson.
------=_NextPart_000_006F_01C02710.F181CEB0-- From owner-zeroconf@merit.edu Tue Sep 26 10:04:24 2000 Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id KAA10361 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 10:04:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id B4A205DD90; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 10:04:06 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: zeroconf-outgoing@merit.edu Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id A1C9E5DDA3; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 10:04:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sol.extremenetworks.com (sol.extremenetworks.com [216.52.8.2]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C58B65DD90 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 10:04:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mosquito.extremenetworks.com ([10.0.8.101]) by sol.extremenetworks.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2650.21) id T4AJACXC; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 07:02:50 -0700 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000926095644.00b0f100@sc-sol-04.extremenetworks.com> X-Sender: rja@sc-sol-04.extremenetworks.com (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 09:58:18 -0400 To: "Charles Larson" From: RJ Atkinson Subject: Re: Configuring devices without consoles Cc: In-Reply-To: <007201c0274b$a0e13c80$b50729d0@clarson> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-zeroconf@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Charles, Email to IETF lists should be sent as MIME text/plain and using a standard character set (e.g. US-ASCII, ISO-8859-1). Your note was using some fancy format that is not readable using all mail readers. Please resend as text/plain and in a standard character set. My guess is that you use MS-Outlook, which seems to be the main source of this kind of problem. I don't use Outlook, so can't help with how to configure it to use normal email formats for outgoing mail, sorry. Thanks, Ran From owner-zeroconf@merit.edu Wed Sep 27 10:06:22 2000 Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id KAA12234 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 10:06:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 066005DDF7; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 10:06:08 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: zeroconf-outgoing@merit.edu Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id EA5625DDEC; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 10:06:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from gw-nl4.philips.com (unknown [212.153.190.6]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D43F5DDEA for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 10:06:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtprelay-nl1.philips.com (localhost.philips.com [127.0.0.1]) by gw-nl4.philips.com with ESMTP id QAA23493 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 16:06:05 +0200 (MEST) (envelope-from peter.van.der.stok@philips.com) From: peter.van.der.stok@philips.com Received: from smtprelay-eur1.philips.com(130.139.36.3) by gw-nl4.philips.com via mwrap (4.0a) id xma023484; Wed, 27 Sep 00 16:06:05 +0200 Received: from notessmtp-nl1.philips.com (notessmtp-nl1.philips.com [130.139.36.10]) by smtprelay-nl1.philips.com (8.9.3/8.8.5-1.2.2m-19990317) with ESMTP id QAA29446 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 16:06:04 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from EHLMS01.DIAMOND.PHILIPS.COM (ehlms01sv1.diamond.philips.com [130.139.54.212]) by notessmtp-nl1.philips.com (8.9.3/8.8.5-1.2.2m-19990317) with ESMTP id QAA25811 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 16:06:04 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by EHLMS01.DIAMOND.PHILIPS.COM (Soft-Switch LMS 4.0) with snapi via EMEA3 id 0056890014406765; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 16:07:08 +0200 To: Subject: comments on zeroconf requirements Message-ID: <0056890014406765000002L952*@MHS> Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 16:07:08 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; name="MEMO 09/27/00 16:04:46" Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-zeroconf@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by ietf.org id KAA12234 ---------------------- Forwarded by Peter van der Stok/EHV/RESEARCH/PHILIPS on 27-09-2000 16:04 --------------------------- Peter van der Stok 27-09-2000 15:16 To: Majordomo@merit.edu@SMTP cc: Peter van der Stok/EHV/RESEARCH/PHILIPS@EMEA3 Subject: comments on zeroconf requirements Classification: Unclassified Dear all, This is the first time I contact you from Philips research to comment on the ZeroConf Requirements document. My comments are coloured by my region of interest: home networks. The document is much improved with respect to former versions I saw elsewhere. I like the increase in rigour and the motivation of the requirements. I do have problems with the requirement mentioned at the end of section 1.6: .... resolve conflicts and state changes in a timely manner Two questions: - what is a timely manner - what are conflicts and state changes and what is their relation? It may well help to define a view that each participant has on the network. Each participant knows a set of IP addresses with a host name and a physical address. One can then define consistency constraints on these views, like - when host A with IP address aa knows host B with IP address bb then also host B with IP address bb knows host A with IP address aa - The view of host A may contain other hosts than the view of host B - The hosts that are present in the view of host A and the view of host B are known by the same IP address, host name and physical address. - A host, present in the view of a correct host that is connected to a network, is correct and connected to the network - A correct host connected to a subnet is present in the views of the correct hosts connected to that subnet Items like default route and netmask need not be in the view but can be known only locally. However then a consistency criterium about hosts in the same subnet must be specified - Hosts in the same subnets have the same default route and netmask Once these or other consistency criteria are defined, requirements on time may be put forward. I expect that different manufacturers wil have attributed different time out values on the time that resonses are expected from other hosts. So negociation between hosts needs to be possible to agree on the time span, DT, that views do not satisfy the consistency criteria. Requirement - Hosts negotiate the maximum time that the views of the hosts in their view may be inconsistent Requirement on inconsistency - Within DT timeunits after the last modification on the network, all views of hosts connected to the network are consistent. A major problem is the definition of a network. What limits a network? It does not look as if a given hop count of TTL defines a network properly. In the home there are some natural boundaries on a network and routers that connect the home network to the outside world can be easily identified. These routers seem to be the natural boundary and anything that connects networks within the home is part of one home network. More difficult is the situation that a WAP telephone tries to look at the devices in the home network. Is the WAP telephone then part of the network. The telephone certainly needs to know the state of the devices connected tot the home network. From the former consistency definition that means that the devices in the home need to know about the WAP phone. As last comment I like to react to the process definition. A process is something active while in the definition it is something static. I like to modify the definition process - A process executes the implementation of an algorithm in hardware, software or a combination of both. Eventually one may add that it sequentially executes this implementation because later on the set of processes is defined. I hope this is a useful contribution to the discussion Greetings peter van der Stok Peter van der Stok Philips Research Laboratories Eindhoven Bldg: WL P 311 Prof. Holstlaan 4 Phone: +31 40 2742649 5656 AA Eindhoven Fax: +31 40 274 The Netherlands Mailto: Peter.van.der.Stok@ philips.com From owner-zeroconf@merit.edu Thu Sep 28 11:08:52 2000 Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id LAA22951 for ; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 11:08:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 608D15DE3A; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 11:06:33 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: zeroconf-outgoing@merit.edu Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 481535DE34; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 11:06:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mercury.Sun.COM (mercury.Sun.COM [192.9.25.1]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCD835DE24 for ; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 11:05:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from efra05-home.Germany.Sun.COM ([129.157.43.5]) by mercury.Sun.COM (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA20802; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 08:05:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vayne (muc-isdn-4 [129.157.164.104]) by efra05-home.Germany.Sun.COM (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8/ENSMAIL,v1.9) with SMTP id RAA19642; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 17:04:31 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 17:14:13 +0200 (MET DST) From: Erik Guttman Reply-To: Erik Guttman Subject: Re: Configuring devices without consoles To: Charles Larson Cc: zeroconf@merit.edu In-Reply-To: "Your message with ID" <007201c0274b$a0e13c80$b50729d0@clarson> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Sender: owner-zeroconf@merit.edu Precedence: bulk > We build industrial instrumentation which has an ethernet port. The device > may or may not have a console. In the commercial world, I suppose this > would apply to a network printer. I want to be able to configure that > device, possibly with a static IP address, possibly for DHCP without needing > a console. In other words I want to configure it over the ethernet. The > trouble is that if it is unconfigured or configured incorrectly, I cant talk > to it. > > I seems to me that the zero configuration protocol solves this or could > solve it. Once the device has configured itself using zeroconfig, we can > communicate with it to set its regular internet configuration parameters. Yes. Automatic IP address configuration would supply the device with an address and Service Discovery would enable the device to be discovered by your configuration management application. > It seems to me that there are some considerations which are necessary in the > zeroconfig protocol to insure that it can be used for this. Locating the > devices would be part of the problem. But I think that is just service > location, which is already considered. I suppose actually configuring the > device is outside of the scope of this group. Device configuration protocols which are not peer to peer are by their nature outside of the scope of the Zero Configuration Working group. You should consider work going on in the DHC and SNMPCONF for example, which are focussed on these issues. Erik From owner-zeroconf@merit.edu Thu Sep 28 17:04:28 2000 Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id RAA02213 for ; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 17:04:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 196725DE76; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 17:04:19 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: zeroconf-outgoing@merit.edu Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 096B25DE74; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 17:04:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mta5.snfc21.pbi.net (mta5.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.241]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C06705DE71 for ; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 17:04:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from SERVER.PacBell.net ([63.199.7.253]) by mta5.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.2000.01.05.12.18.p9) with ESMTP id <0G1L00B6UXX0CT@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net> for ZeroConf@Merit.edu; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 10:29:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 10:27:06 -0700 From: Peter Johansson Subject: Re: WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-zeroconf-reqts-05.txt In-reply-to: X-Sender: Celeborn@PacBell.net To: Zero Configuration Message-id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000928101328.00beacd0@PacBell.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-zeroconf@merit.edu Precedence: bulk At 06:33 AM 9/25/00, Erik Guttman wrote: >This is a notice of a Working Group Last Call on the document > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-zeroconf-reqts-05.txt > >Please send your comments in the next two weeks. At that time (October 9) >we will evaluate the working group consensus on the document, if necessary >revise the document, then submit it to the IESG for publication as an >Informational RFC. In section 1, I think the last sentence should read "Zeroconf protocols MAY use configured information, when it is available, but do not rely on its presence." For those of you that don't have the requirements document in front of you, the change is from "configuration" to "configured information". I could not parse the intent of "configuration" as it is now written. I think the change I propose is consistent with the intent of the working group, but if I'm mistaken I think a (short) discussion is merited---so as too avoid confusion over a fundamental part of the requirements. In section 1.6, what is a "spurious topology change"? I suggest that the word "spurious" be removed; the sentence seems to be applicable without it. In section 2.1.2, what is a "bridge"? Regards, Peter Johansson Congruent Software, Inc. 98 Colorado Avenue Berkeley, CA 94707 (510) 527-3926 (510) 527-3856 FAX PJohansson@ACM.org From owner-zeroconf@merit.edu Fri Sep 29 09:57:00 2000 Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id JAA00054 for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 09:57:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 952F25DDA1; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 09:56:40 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: zeroconf-outgoing@merit.edu Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 82FA85DDA6; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 09:56:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mercury.Sun.COM (mercury.Sun.COM [192.9.25.1]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FB565DDA1 for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 09:56:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from efra05-home.Germany.Sun.COM ([129.157.43.5]) by mercury.Sun.COM (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA17694; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 06:56:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vayne (muc-isdn-10 [129.157.164.110]) by efra05-home.Germany.Sun.COM (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8/ENSMAIL,v1.9) with SMTP id PAA00077; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 15:56:28 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 16:06:11 +0200 (MET DST) From: Erik Guttman Reply-To: Erik Guttman Subject: Re: comments on zeroconf requirements To: peter.van.der.stok@philips.com Cc: zeroconf@merit.edu In-Reply-To: "Your message with ID" <0056890014406765000002L952*@MHS> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Sender: owner-zeroconf@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Peter Van Der Stok wrote: > I do have problems with the requirement mentioned at the end of section 1.6: > .... resolve conflicts and state changes in a timely manner This is a requirements document, not a protocol specification. Conflicts which were never detected or resolved would not be timely. Conflicts which were detected and resolved in microseconds would surely be timely. We have a shared notion of timeliness (from our experience with DHCP and DNS for instance). The goal is that we state what the issues and priorities are in the requirements doc so that we will have criteria for evaluating candidate zeroconf protocols for standardization. > - what are conflicts and state changes and what is their relation? These are described in various sections. 2.1.2 shows how topology changes can create conflicts such as duplicate IP addresses. 2.2.2 discusses duplicate names. Multicast address allocation would also be a source of conflicts if one address was allocated in distinct networks and those networks were fused. I agree it would be useful to draw out this point. > A major problem is the definition of a network. What limits a network? Why do we need a limiting definition? draft-ietf-zeroconf-reqts-05.txt says: Zeroconf protocols have no specific topological restrictions or requirements; networks may consist of multiple IP subnets or a single IP subnet; networks may be isolated or connected to larger networks (e.g. Internet). However, there is a conditional requirement. The condition exists if a protocol is targeted to operate in multiple IP subnet topologies. The requirement is the protocol MUST be routable. For example, a protocol MUST use IP multicast and not use IP broadcast. Requirement: - If a protocol is to operate in multiple IP subnet topologies, the protocol MUST be routable. If a zeroconf protocol operates on a single subnet (link-local only) then it is by definition applicable only to a limited topology. If the protocol is not link-local only, it must use a routable protocol. We are defining requirements for zeroconf protocols without creating arbitrary restrictions on them (such as which networks they can and cannot be used). Thanks for your input, Erik