-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
/
draft-eckert-anima-grasp-dnssd.txt
1064 lines (708 loc) · 42.4 KB
/
draft-eckert-anima-grasp-dnssd.txt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
ANIMA WG T.T.E. Eckert
Internet-Draft Futurewei
Intended status: Standards Track M. Boucadair
Expires: 11 January 2024 C. Jacquenet
Orange
M. Behringer
10 July 2023
DNS-SD Compatible Service Discovery in GeneRic Autonomic Signaling
Protocol (GRASP)
draft-eckert-anima-grasp-dnssd-05
Abstract
DNS Service Discovery (DNS-SD) defines a framework for applications
to announce and discover services. This includes service names,
service instance names, common parameters for selecting a service
instance (weight or priority) as well as other service-specific
parameters. For the specific case of autonomic networks, GeneRic
Autonomic Signaling Protocol (GRASP) intends to be used for service
discovery in addition to the setup of basic connectivity.
Reinventing advanced service discovery for GRASP with a similar set
of features as DNS-SD would result in duplicated work. To avoid
that, this document defines how to use GRASP to announce and discover
services relying upon DNS-SD features while maintaining the intended
simplicity of GRASP. To that aim, the document defines name
discovery and schemes for reusable elements in GRASP objectives.
Note to the RFC Editor
Please replace all occurrences of rfcXXXX with the RFC number
assigned to this document.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
Eckert, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft DNS-SD via GRASP July 2023
This Internet-Draft will expire on 11 January 2024.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Service and Name Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Objective Value Reuseable Elements Structure . . . . . . 6
3.3. Reuseable Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3.1. Sender Loop Count . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3.2. Service Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3.3. Name Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4. Theory of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.1. Using GRASP Service Announcements . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.2. Further Comparison with DNS-SD . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.3. Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9. Change log [RFC Editor: Please remove] . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9.1. 05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9.2. 04 - Refresh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9.3. 03 - Refresh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9.4. 02 - Revived after charter round 1 finished . . . . . . . 17
9.5. 01 - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9.6. 00 - Initial version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Eckert, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft DNS-SD via GRASP July 2023
1. Overview
GeneRic Autonomic Signaling Protocol (GRASP) [RFC8990] is intended to
be used for Service Announcement, Discovery and Selection especially
in network or for network services intended to be deployable without
dependencies against centralized "server" entities, such as fully
autonomous networks or Autonomous Service Agents (ASA).
To support these goals, GRASP provides a hop-by-hop network wide
flooding of announcement or discover messages reliably and secured
and without looping messages. This flooding is achieved with a per-
hop GRASP agent responsible for per-hop flooding of GRASP messages.
While such flooding based procedures do not necessarily scale to
arbitrarily large number of services or services instances, it is
easy to calculate how many service anouncement and/or discovery
messages can be supported in a target network without exceeding
reasonable limits on those service messages use of network resources.
Typically, all services required by the network infrastructure, as
well as core application services will scale perfectly well with this
model and eradicate the requirement for provisioning of centralized
entities and building redundancy for them.
DNS-SD via mDNS [RFC6763] was introduced with the same purposes, but
does not have a solid multi-hop flooding modely to rely on because it
solely relies on ASM IP Multicast, and there is no IETF standards
track solution through which this service can be autonomously
provided. Instead, it would have to rely on protocols such as PIM-SM
or Bidir-PIM which all require careful planning of centralized
service entities called Rendesvous points - as well as planning and
deployment redundancy for them. The non-ability to use his service
for DNS-SD with mDNS first lead to attempts building flooding for
mDNS messages without an underlying IP multicast service as an mDNS
message flooding through various commercial vendors, but these
solutions all suffered from the problem, that mDNS messages
themselves do not provide the means for loop detection.
Eckert, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft DNS-SD via GRASP July 2023
Ultimately, mDNS today is strongly recommended to only be used within
IP subnets, and no expectation of reach beyond a single subnet.
Instead, any larger-scale network deployments of mDNS would rely on
mDNS to unicast DNS proxies which in turn depend on explicitly
provisioned and "centralized" deployed DNS servers. Which is not a
well enough feasible solution for service that easily could and
should operate autonomously: Just plug a few routers together, have
services on them be able to run and be used by any other client in
the network without any configuration. This is what ANIMA ANI
achieves to deliver, but this is also what very ilghtweight
implementations of only GRASP on every router can deliver - without
necessarily requirring the rest of ANI - BRSKI or ACP.
What GRASP itself does not define though is what DNS-SD defines very
well, and that is the nature of what a service announcement/discover
is: What is the name of a service ? When there are multiple instances
(entities) that offer the service, how are they distinguished from
one another (service-instance names) ? How should a client for a
service determine, which service instance to use ? Some services may
be high priority than others. Other instances may be equally well
usebable but have different performances and load sharing by clients
is desired. These and others are all questions and requirements for
any service announcement/discovery/selection mechanism, and DNS-SD
has well defined them. So it seems frivolous to have to reinvent all
these solutions, especially when it would lead to useless duplication
of IANA registries such as service registries already existing for
use with any service discovery mechanism, but primarily used for DNS-
SD.
When attempting to thus reuse what was well defined for DNS-SD, the
first idea coming to mind is likely to simply encapsulate mDNS
messages into GRASP, but that wold simply create a lot of unnecessary
overhead on the wire as well as unnecessary processing.
As RFC6763 explains, DNS-SD itself is not necessarily the ideal way
to define signalling for service announcement/discovery/selection,
but it is based on decades long experience in Apple with the
(proprietary) Name Binding Protocol (NBP), and DNS-SD was merely the
approach on how to map the information required for services into
DNS. Both DNS unicast, as well as DNS multicast (mDNS). This
effectively lead to a whole layer of complexity, which is to split of
the information required for a single service into multiple DNS
Resource Records (DNS-RR) because that is how DNS operates. In
result, a single DNS-SD service instance consists of a SRV RR, PTR
RR, TXT RR, A and/or AAAA RR.
Eckert, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft DNS-SD via GRASP July 2023
None of this complexity is necessary in GRASP, because in GRASP it is
very simple to define a CBOR structure carrying all the desired
information elements for a service instance announcement and/or
discovery, and this document is exactly doing this: Specifying a
direct binding from the service instance information elements as
specified in RFC6760 and then detailled in DNS-SD (RFC6763) into a
single type of GRASP message (GRASP objective) so that there can be a
single consistent service instance definition with its information
elements, but two different mappings into separate underlying
"protocol machineries": DNS-SD into DNS (unicast/multicast) and this
document defining mapping into GRASP.
One of the big benefits of this approach is that it also allows to
easily convert DNS-SD service information into GRASP and vice versa.
For example via proxies. It is equally possible to build APIs for
applications that only need to be concerned with the service
information elements and let the underlying SDK determine whether to
use DNS-SD and/or GRASP to signal it.
While the focus of this document is to define GRASP service data
encoding and signaling primarily for the flooding based methods in
GRASP, they can equally be applied to the unicast signaling methods
of GRASP. However, this document (in this version) does not aim to
provide a 100% mapping of all features of DNS-SD. This may change
inf future revisions, but for now, the document concentrates on
service announcement and discovery within a single local domain.
Somthing which in DNS is covered via domain ".local" in mDNS and an
appropriate mapping into some named local domain in unicast DNS. The
reason for this limitation is simply that there is as of today no
well developed structuring of flooding GRASP, and as such the best
constraint to be put onto the use of GRASP for flooded service
announcemenet/discovery is by constraining it to the equivalent of
".local".
To not limit deployment of solutions in need of broader DNS services,
the mechanisms in this document allows for automatically discovering
DNS-SD servers via GRASP and thus easy building of hybrid solutions
leveraging the best of GRASP and DNS: Use GRASP for local domain (but
potentially large scale) flooding based discovery/selection via GRASP
eliminating multicast-DNS and need for DNS servers, and use unicast-
DNS for any services that can not be deployed without dependency
against centralized DNS servers anyhow.
Eckert, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft DNS-SD via GRASP July 2023
2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
This document makes use of terms and concepts defined in [RFC8990].
3. Specification
3.1. Service and Name Objectives
Unsolicited, flooded announcements (M_FLOOD) in GRASP and solicited
flooded discovery (M_DISCOVERY) operate on the unit of GRASP
technical objectives (identified by 'objective-names' as discussed in
Section 2.10 of [RFC8990]). Therefore, a scheme is required to
indicate services via 'objective-names'.
Note: Future work may want to reuse the encodings related to
services (defined below in this document) inside other (multicast
or unicast only) objective exchanges, in which case the service
names are not impacted.
When a technical objective (simply referred to as objective) is meant
to be solely about a service name, the objective MUST uses an
'objective-name' of 'SRV.<service-name>'. This naming scheme is
meant to avoid creating duplicates and, potentially, inconsistent
name registrations for those objectives vs. registrations done, for
example, for DNS-SD.
When an objective is meant announcement and discovery of a DNS
compatible <name> such as "www-internal" in "www-
internal.example.com", the objective SHOULD use an objective-name of
NAME.<name>. See Section 3.3.3 for more details.
3.2. Objective Value Reuseable Elements Structure
Because service discovery, as explained in the prior section, needs
to utilize different objectives, it requires cross-objective
standardized encoding of the elements of services. GRASP does not
define standardized message elements for the message body (called
"objective-value") of GRASP messages. Therefore, this document
introduces such a feature.
Eckert, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft DNS-SD via GRASP July 2023
objective-value /= { 1*elements }
elements //= ( @rfcXXXX: { 1*relement } )
relement = ( relement-codepoint => relement-value )
relement-codepoint = uint
relement-value = any
If an objective relies upon reusable elements, the 'objective-value'
MUST be a CBOR map and the reusable elements are found under the key
"@rfcXXXX".
Objectives that do not want reusable elements may use any objective-
value format including a CBOR map, but they can not use the
"@rfcXXXX" key if they use a map. This approach was chosen as the
hopefully least intrusive mechanism given how by nature all of
"objective-value" is meant to be defined by individual objective
definitions.
The value of "@rfcXXXX" is a map of reusable elements. Each
'relement' has an IANA registered element-name and codepoint (see
Section 6). The element-name is for documentation purposes only,
CBOR encodings only use the numeric codepoint for encoding efficiency
to minimize the risk for this solution to not be applicable to low-
bitrate networks such as in IoT.
Format and semantic of the relement-value is determined by the
specification of the reusable element as is the fact whether more
than one instances of the same reusable element are permitted.
Reusable elements should be defined to be extensible. The methods
used depend on the complexity of the element and the likely need to
extend/modify the element with backward or non-backward compatible
information. The following is a set of initial options to choose
from:
Element values that are a map MUST permit and reserve key value 0
(numerical) for private extensions of the element defined by the
individual objective.
Element values that are a map MUST NOT use bareword key values
starting with a "_". These too are for private extensions defined by
the individual objective.
Eckert, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft DNS-SD via GRASP July 2023
Element values SHOULD be defined so that additional keys in maps and
additional elements at the end of arrays can be ignored by prior
versions of the definition. Whenever a newer definition is made for
an element where this rule is violated, the element SHOULD be changed
in a way for older version recipients to recognize that it is not
compatible with it.
One method to indicate compatibility is a traditional version
"<mayor>.<minor>". Within the same <mayor> version number,
increasing <minor> version numbers must be backward compatible.
Different <mayor> version numbers are not expected to be compatible
with each other. If they are, then this can be indicated by
including multiple version numbers.
A compressed form of version compatibility information is the use of
a simple bitmask element where each bit indicates a version that the
represented data is compatible with.
3.3. Reuseable Elements
3.3.1. Sender Loop Count
relement-codepoint //= ( &(sender-loop-count:1) => 1..255 )
Sender-loop-count is set by the sender of an objective message to the
same value as the loop-count of the message. On receipt, distance =
( sender-loop-count - loop-count ) is the distance of the sender from
the receiver in hops. This element can be used for informational
purposes in M_FLOOD and M_DISCOVERY messages and may be required to
be used in these messages by the specification of other elements
(such as the service element described below). This element MUST
occur at most once. If a receiver expects to use the distance but
sender-loop-count was not announced, then distance SHOULD be assumed
to be 255 by the receiver.
3.3.2. Service Element
The srv-element (service element) is a reusable element to request or
announce a service instance or to request and list service instance
names.
Eckert, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft DNS-SD via GRASP July 2023
relement-codepoint //= ( &(srv-element:2) => context-element )
context-element = {
?( &(private:0) => any),
?( &(msg-type:1 => msg-type),
?( &(service:2) => tstr),
*( &(instance:3) => tstr),
?( &(domain:4) => tstr),
?( &(priority:5) => 0..65535 ),
?( &(weight:6) => 0..65535 ),
*( &(kvpairs:7) => { *(tstr: any) },
?( &(range:8) => 0..255 ),
*( &(clocator:9) => clocator),
}
clocator = [ context, locator-option ]
context = cstr
locator-option = ; from GRASP
msg-type = &( describe: 0, describe-request:1,
enumerate:2, enumerate-request:3 )
Service: A service name registered according to RFC6335. If it is
not present, then objective-name MUST be SRV.<service-name> where
<service-name> is the service-name.
Instance: The <Instance> of a DNS-SD Service Instance Name (
<Instance> . <Service> . <Domain>). It is optional, see
Section 4.2.
Domain: The equivalent of the <Domain> field of a DNS-SD Service
Instance Name. If domain is not present, this is equivalent to
".local" in DNS (as introduced by mDNS) and implies the unnamed
"local" domain, which is the GRASP domain across which the message
is transmitted.
Priority, Weight: Service Instance selection criteria as defined in
RFC2782. If either one is not present, its value defaults to 0.
Kvpairs: Map of key/value pairs that are service parameters in the
same format as the key/value pairs in TXT field(s) of DNS-SD TXT
records as defined in RFC6763, section 6.3.
Range: Allows to flexibly combine distance and priority/weight based
service selection according to the definition of distance in
Section 3.3.1.
If min-distance is the distance of the closest service announcer,
Eckert, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft DNS-SD via GRASP July 2023
and min-range the range announced by it, then the recipient MUST
consider the priority/weight of all service announcers that are
not further away than (min-distance + min-range). If not
included, range defaults to 255.
If range is announced, the sender-loop-count element MUST also be
announced.
Clocator: The "contextual locator" allows to indicate zero or more
locators for the indicated service instance. The context element
indicates in which context the locator-option is to be resolved.
The reserved context value of "" (empty string) indicates the
GRASP domain used, aka: the "local" context in which the service
announcement is made. The reserved context value of "0" indicates
the default routing context of the announcing node. This is often
called "global table", "VRF 0" or "default VRF" on nodes using the
"VRF" abstraction. Any other value is a string specifying a
context such as another VRF.
The mechanism by which originator and recipient of the srv-element
agree on common naming for contexts is outside the scope of this
specification. The context therefore allows to indicate locators
both for the context through which the GRASP message distributed
the srv-element (GRASP domain) as well as that for other contexts.
Assume the GRASP domain is the ACP, then clocators in ACP would
have a context of "", clocators in the global routing table (part
of the data-plane) a context of "0", and clocators on other VRFs
(also part of data-plane) a clocator that is their string name.
If no locators are indicated, then the locator of the service(s)
is the optional locator-option of the GRASP message in which the
objective is contained meant to be used for the service(s)
indicated and the clocator implied is "".
If locator(s) are indicated, the messages location-option must be
ignored for the service (but may be necessary to be present for
other purposes of the objective).
Msg-type Type (aka: intention) of the srv-element. If not present,
it is assumed to be "describe".
Describe: Describes one service instance. At least one clocator is
required for a positive response, all other fields are permitted,
but optional. "Describe" is used in M_FLOOD for unsolicited
announcements of services (flooded), in M_RESPONSE messages for
solicited announcements of a service and in M_NEGOTIATE for
negotiated announcements (both unicasted). If clocator is not
included, then all fields except service and instance (and msg-
Eckert, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft DNS-SD via GRASP July 2023
type and private) must not be included and the srv-element
provides a negative reply: No information about this service/
service instance. This is only permitted in unicasted "describe"
messages.
Describe-request: Request for a "describe" reply. It is used in
M_DISCOVERY (flooded) for solicited discovery of services or in
M_REQ_SYN (unicasted) for negotiated discovery of service
instance(s). In "describe-request", only service is mandatory
(but can be provided via the objective-name field of the message),
and domain is optional. "Instance" is optional. If provided,
then the recipient is asked to provide information about the named
instance only. All other fields of srv-element are to be ignored
by the receiver in this specification, but a semantic for setting
them may be introduced in follow-up work, specifically to filter
replies by the indicated fields.
"Describe-request" without instance MAY be answered by "Enumerate"
(see below) if the responder has so many instances that it thinks
the initiator should rather first select one or fewer instances
and ask for their description. The sender of te "Describe-
request" MUST be prepared to accept that answer and as necessary
follow up with "Describe-request" with the instance names of
interest.
Enumerate: Used in the same GRASP messages as "describe", but
instead of providing information about one service instance, it is
listing service instance names. The purpose of enumerate is the
same as browsing a service in DNS-SD. It would be followed by
some human or automated selection of one or more instances and
then a "describe" M_REQ_SYN request for those instances sent to
the source of the "enumerate" to learn about the locators and
other parameters of the service instances.
In this specification, all fields other than service, instance and
domain (and msg-type and private) must be unset in "enumerate".
Enumerate-request: Requests an "enumerate" reply. It is used in the
same way as "Describe-request" except that instance would usually
not be set (because in that case it is more useful to send a
"Describe-request").
3.3.3. Name Element
The NAME,<name> elements is meant to provide basic name resolution
comparable to mDNS name resolution for GRASP domains where this is
desirable and no better name resolution exist - for example in the
ACP where there is no requirement for DNS.
Eckert, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft DNS-SD via GRASP July 2023
Because the GRASP service lookup (unlike) DNS does not mandate that
nodes have names (not even service instance names), the use of names
is primarily meant to support legacy software. New designs should
instead look up only services and service instance names, and nodes
should announce their names as service instance names for the
services they offer:
For example consider a GRASP (ACP) domain of "example.com". The node
providing some "www" service could have a name "www-internal" which
means GRASP objective NAME.www-internal, that objective value would
include primarily the nodes IP address(es) and the port number for
the www service would have to be guessed (80). Better, the node
would announce GRASP objective SRV.www and the objective value would
include the service instance name www-internal and the (TCP) port
information (80 or a non-default port).
relement-codepoint //= ( &(name-element:3) => context-element )
context-element //= {
*( &name:10) => tstr),
}
ipv6-address-option = [O_IPv4_ADDRESS, ipv6-address]
ipv4-address-option = [O_IPv6_ADDRESS, ipv6-address]
locator-option /= ipv4-address-option
locator-option /= ipv6-address-option
Name information is carried in the name-element relement. It is a
context-element like the one used for srv-element except that it adds
the name component and that it does not permit the service and
instance components and that it allows only describe and describe-
request values in the msg-type. Clocators MUST use the ipv6-address-
option or ipv4-address-option in the locator-option component.
TBD: Unclear if/how we should best formalize the differences in the
context element permitted information between services and names.
The above is quite informal.
Priority, weight, kvpairs, range (and of course private) MAY be used
in describe messages to support multiple instances of the same name,
as used for name anycast/prioritycast.
Eckert, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft DNS-SD via GRASP July 2023
Nodes may have multiple names. These can be listed in the name
component. If a nodes names have the notion of a primary name and
secondary names then the primary name should be the first in the list
of names. In DNS-SD, the name pointed to by CNAME RRs can be
considered to be the primary name. A describe-request for a non-
primary name SHOULD return in the list of names the requested name
and the primary name.
Note that there is no reverse lookup defined in this version of the
document (no lookup from IP address to name).
4. Theory of Operation
4.1. Using GRASP Service Announcements
TBD: This section contains a range of details that should become
normative in later versions.
This section provides a step by step walk-through of how to use GRASP
service announcements and compares it to DNS-SD.
The most simple method to use GRASP service discovery is to select
(and if still necessary, register) a <service-name> and start one or
more agents (e.g.: ASAs) announcing their service instance(s) via
GRASP. At minimum, an agent should periodically (default 60 seconds)
announce the service instance via GRASP M_FLOOD messages as an
objective SRV.<service-name> with a srv-element and a sender-loop-
count element (default 255). The ttl of the GRASP message should be
3.5 times the announcement period, e.g.: 210000 msec.
Consumers of the service will use GRASP to learn of the service
instances and select one. This approach is most similar to the use
of DNS-SD with mDNS except that the scope of the announcement is a
whole GRASP domain (such as the ACP) as opposed to a single IP subnet
in mDNS and that mDNS primarily relies on request & reply but in its
standard not on periodic unsolicited announcements. We describe here
the unsolicited flooding option via M_FLOOD first because it is
recommended for services with a dense population of service consumers
and it is most simple to describe.
On the service announcer, the parameters priority, weight and range
of the service instance can be selected from intent or configuration
- or left at default. The default range 255 will result in selection
of a random target of the service like in DNS-SD. Setting priority/
weight allows to prioritize and weigh the selection as in DNS-SD.
Setting range to 0 allows to select the closest target, priority/
weight are only compared between targets of the same shortest
Eckert, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft DNS-SD via GRASP July 2023
distance. Distance based options are not available in DNS-SD because
it does not expect that network distance is available to arbitrary
DNS-SD client. It is available to GRASP clients though. Using 0 <
range < 255 allows for a hybrid priority/weight and distance based
service selection (e.g.: Select the highest priority instance within
a range of 5 hops).
If the service is a non-GRASP service, then the result of the service
discovery has to be a transport locator to which the client can open
a connection and talk the protocol implied by the service. This
transport locator(s) have to be put into the clocator parameter. The
context of the clocator would normally be "", aka: the transport
locator is in the IP reachability associated with the GRASP domain
(e.g.: IPv6 of the ACP for ACP GRASP domain).
If an ACP service is announced via ACP GRASP, then the locator(s) can
be O_IPv6_LOCATOR or O_FQDN_LOCATOR. The O_IPv6_LOCATOR is used if
the service is defined to be available via some transport layer port
(TCP, UDP or other). The determination of the actual transport
connection to be used is the same as in DNS-SD: If the transport
protocol is not TCP or UDP, it has to be implied by the specification
of <service-name> or can be detailed in kvpairs which carries the
same information as DNS-TXT TXT RRs of the service. Alternatively,
the transport-proto field of the locator can contain any valid IP
protocol directly (TBD), which is not possible in DNS-SD.
Like DNS-SD, service discovery via GRASP does not require allocation
and use of well-known ports for services. Unlike DNS-SD, there is no
need in GRASP to define service instance names or target names. In
DNS SD, PTR RRs resolve from a service name to a set of service
instance named. SRV and TXT RRs resolve from service instance names
to service instance parameters including the target. A target is the
DNS host name of the service instance. It gets resolved via A/AAAA
RRs to IPv4/IPv6 addresses of the target. In GRASP service
discovery, host names are not used. Service instance names are
optional too. Service instance names are useful for human
diagnostics and human selection of service instances. In fully
automated environments, they can be are less important. For
diagnostic purposes, it is recommended to give service instances
service instance names in GRASP service announcements.
A locator with O_URI_LOCATOR type can be used in GRASP to indicate a
URI for the transport method for a service instance. If the URI
includes a host part, care must be taken to use only IP addresses in
the host part if the context of the GRASP domain does not support
host name resolution - such as the ACP - or to use the GRASP name
resolution mechanisms described elsewhere in this document. And that
the addresses indicated are also reachable in the GRASP domain. For
Eckert, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft DNS-SD via GRASP July 2023
example, in service announcements across a DULL GRASP domain, only
the IPv6 link-local addresses on that subnet must be used (this
applies equally when using the O_IPv6_LOCATOR).
Instead of using M_FLOOD to periodically announce service instances,
M_DISCOVERY can be used to actively query for service instances. The
msg-type type must then be "describe-request". Because no periodic
flooding is necessary, this solution is more lightweight for the
network when the number of requesting clients is small. Note though
that the M_DISCOVERY will terminate as soon as a provider of the
objective is found, so the service instances found will be based on
distance and therefore selection of instance by priority and weight
will not work equally well as with M_FLOOD. Consider for example a
central service instance in the NOC that should always be used (for
example for centralized operational diagnostics) unless the WAN
connection is broken, in which case distributed backup service
instances should be used. With the current logic of M_DISCOVERY this
is not possible.
4.2. Further Comparison with DNS-SD
Neither the GRASP SRV.* objective-name, the service name nor any
other parameter explicitly indicate the second label "_tcp" or "_udp"
of DNS-SD entries. DNS-SD, RFC6763 explains how this is an
unnecessary, historic artifact.
This version of the document does not define an equivalent to "_sub"
structuring of service enumeration.
This version of the document does not define mechanisms for reverse
resolution of arbitrary services: An inquirer may unicast M_SYNC_REC
to a node with a series of objectives with specific service names of
interest and describe-request, but there is no indication of "ANY"
service.
4.3. Open Issues
TBD: Examine limitations mentioned in "in this version of the text/
document".
TBD: The GRASP specification does currently only permit TCP and UDP
for the transport-proto element. This draft should expand the GRASP
definitions to permit any valid IP protocol. We just need to decide
whether this should only apply to the locator in the srv element or
also retroactive to the locator-option in GRASP messages (maybe not
there ?).
Eckert, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft DNS-SD via GRASP July 2023
TBD: A fitting CBOR representation for a kvpair key without value
needs to be specified so that it can be distinguished from an empty
value as outlined in RFC6763 section 6.4.
TBD: In this version, every service/service-instance is an element by
itself. Future versions of this document may add more encoding
options to allow more compact encoding of recurring fields.
TBD: Is there a way in CDDL to formally define the string names of
the relement-codepoint's ?
5. Security Considerations
TBD.
GRASP-related security issues are discussed in Section 3 of
[RFC8990].
6. IANA Considerations
This document requests IANA to create a new "GRASP Objective Value
Standard Elements" subregistry under the "GeneRic Autonomic Signaling
Protocol (GRASP) Parameters" registry.
The values in this table are names and a unique numerical value
assigned to each name. Future values MUST be assigned using the RFC
Required policy as dedfined in Section 4.7 of [RFC8126]. The
numerical value is simply to be assigned sequentially. The following
initial values are assigned by this document:
sender-loop-count 1 [defined in rfcXXXX]
srv-element 2 [defined in rfcXXXX]
name-element 3 [defined in rfcXXXX]
This document updates the handling of the "GRASP Objective Names"
Table introduced in the GRASP IANA considerations as follows:
Assignments for objective-names of the form "SRV.<text>" and
"NAME.<text>" are special.
Assignment of "SRV.<text>" can only be requested if <text> is also a
registered service-name according to RFC6335. The specification
required for registration of a "GRASP Objective Name" MUST declare
that the intended use of the objective name in GRASP is intended to
be compatible with the indented use of the registered service name.
Eckert, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft DNS-SD via GRASP July 2023
Registration of "SRV.<text>" in the "GRASP Objective Name" table is
optional, but recommended for all new service-names that are meant to
be used with GRASP. Non-registration can for example happen with
DNS-SD <-> GRASP gateways that inject pre-existing service-names into
GRASP. Note that according to the GRASP RFC, registration is
mandatory, so this exemption for "SRV.<text>" is also an update to
that specification.
There MUST NOT be any assignment for objective names of the form
"NAME.<text>". These names are simply used by GRASP nodes without
registration (just like names in mDNS).
7. Acknowledgements
8. Contributors
Brian Carpenter
9. Change log [RFC Editor: Please remove]
9.1. 05
Rewrote overview section in response to review comments by Peter vdS
and Esko (hopefully better justification/explanation). Thanks!
9.2. 04 - Refresh
9.3. 03 - Refresh
9.4. 02 - Revived after charter round 1 finished
Reviving after ANIMA charter 01 is finished, adding new co-authors,
contributors.
Textual improvements, updating references.
9.5. 01 -
Only refreshing, no changes since -00.
9.6. 00 - Initial version
10. References
10.1. Normative References
Eckert, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft DNS-SD via GRASP July 2023
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC6763] Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "DNS-Based Service
Discovery", RFC 6763, DOI 10.17487/RFC6763, February 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6763>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8990] Bormann, C., Carpenter, B., Ed., and B. Liu, Ed., "GeneRic
Autonomic Signaling Protocol (GRASP)", RFC 8990,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8990, May 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8990>.
10.2. Informative References
[RFC8994] Eckert, T., Ed., Behringer, M., Ed., and S. Bjarnason, "An
Autonomic Control Plane (ACP)", RFC 8994,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8994, May 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8994>.
Authors' Addresses
Toerless Eckert
Futurewei Technologies USA Inc.
2220 Central Expressway
Santa Clara, 95050
United States of America
Email: [email protected]
Mohamed Boucadair
Orange
35000 Rennes
France