[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 RFC 3832

INTERNET DRAFT                                                W. Zhao
draft-zhao-slp-remote-da-discovery-06.txt              H. Schulzrinne
[Target Category: Experimental]                   Columbia University
March 23, 2004                                             E. Guttman
Expires: September 23, 2004                          Sun Microsystems
                                                         C. Bisdikian
                                                            W. Jerome
                                                                  IBM


 Remote Service Discovery in the Service Location Protocol via DNS SRV

Status of This Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   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."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

   Remote service discovery refers to discovering desired services in
   given remote (i.e., non-local) DNS domains. This document describes
   remote service discovery in the Service Location Protocol (SLP) via
   DNS SRV. It defines the DNS SRV Resource Records for SLP Directory
   Agent services, discusses various issues in using SLP and DNS SRV
   together for remote service discovery, and gives the steps for
   discovering desired services in remote DNS domains.





Zhao, et al.          Expires: September 23, 2004               [Page 1]

Internet Draft    Remote Discovery in SLP via DNS SRV     March 23, 2004


1. Introduction

   This document describes remote service discovery in the Service
   Location Protocol (SLP) [RFC2608] via DNS SRV [RFC2782]. We consider
   remote service discovery as discovering desired services in given
   remote DNS domains, and local service discovery as discovering
   desired services within the local administrative domain.

   SLP provides a scalable framework for local service discovery and
   selection. In SLP, User Agents (UAs) discover desired services in the
   local administrative domain by querying all Service Agents (SAs) via
   multicast or querying a Directory Agent (DA) via unicast. To query a
   DA using unicast, a UA needs to first learn about the DA via DHCP,
   static configuration or multicast (listening for DAAdvert multicast
   or issuing DA discovery SrvRqst multicast).

   DNS SRV provides a good support for remote service discovery.
   However, if multiple servers are discovered via DNS SRV for a
   service, only priority and weight can be used to make a selection. If
   additional service properties (such as cost, speed and service
   quality) need to be considered in the selection process, DNS SRV
   becomes insufficient.

   We propose that using SLP and DNS SRV together can provide a better
   support for remote service discovery. First, a UA uses DNS SRV to
   find SLP DAs at a remote DNS domain. Then, the UA queries one of
   those DAs to discover desired services. In this way, we can avoid the
   limitations in using SLP and DNS SRV separately. On one hand, without
   DNS SRV, an SLP UA needs to depend on static configuration to learn
   about remote DAs because DHCP and multicast DA discovery are not
   generally applicable beyond the local administrative domain. On the
   other hand, without SLP, DNS SRV has limited support for service
   selection.

   In this document, we first define the DNS SRV Resource Records (RRs)
   for SLP DA services, which are used to map a given DNS domain to
   remotely accessible (i.e., accessible from the Internet) DAs in that
   domain. Then, we discuss various issues in using SLP and DNS SRV
   together for remote service discovery. Finally, we give the steps for
   discovering desired services in remote DNS domains.

1.1. Notation Conventions

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119
   [RFC2119].




Zhao, et al.          Expires: September 23, 2004               [Page 2]

Internet Draft    Remote Discovery in SLP via DNS SRV     March 23, 2004


2. The DNS SRV RRs for SLP DA services

   According to RFC 2782 [RFC2782], the DNS SRV RRs for SLP DA services
   are defined as follows:

   _slpda._Proto.Name TTL Class SRV Priority Weight Port Target

   where "slpda" is the symbolic name for SLP DA services in Assigned
   Numbers [NUMBERS], the Proto field is either "tcp" or "udp", and the
   Target field is the domain name of an SLP DA. Please refer to
   [RFC2782] for detailed explanation of each field in DNS SRV RRs.

   Next we show an example of using DNS SRV RRs to map a given DNS
   domain to remotely accessible DAs in that domain. To discover
   remotely accessible DAs in a remote domain (say, example.com), a UA
   makes a DNS query [RFC1034,RFC1035] for QNAME=_slpda._tcp.example.com
   (or QNAME=_slpda._udp.example.com), QCLASS=IN, and QTYPE=SRV. Then
   the UA will receive a list of DNS SRV RRs in a DNS reply, which gives
   all remotely accessible DAs in the domain example.com, such as:

   ;;                             Priority Weight Port Target
   _slpda._tcp.example.com IN SRV 0        0      427  da1.example.com
   _slpda._tcp.example.com IN SRV 0        0      427  da2.example.com

3. Remote Service Discovery in SLP via DNS SRV

   SLP DAs can be discovered in two ways: (1) using the mechanisms
   described in RFC 2608, and (2) using DNS SRV RRs as described in this
   document. The second approach is useful for UAs to acquire service
   information for remote DNS domains. For example, a mobile node
   visiting a network (without the use of mobile IP) may want to obtain
   information about services in its home network.

3.1. The DNS Domain of Interest for Remote Service Discovery

   Using DNS SRV RRs to discover SLP DAs requires knowledge of the
   domain where SLP DAs are registered. For remote service discovery, we
   assume that the DNS domain of interest is known via a priori
   knowledge. For example, a UA is configured with a domain name or the
   user provides the domain name manually.

   Note that there is no implied "search order" of DNS domains in
   finding remote DAs. For instance, if a UA is looking for remote DAs
   in the domain foo.bar.example.com, it SHOULD only look for
   _slp._tcp.foo.bar.example.com (or _slp._udp.foo.bar.example.com), and
   MUST NOT fall back to look for _slp._tcp.bar.example.com,
   _slp._tcp.example.com, and so on.




Zhao, et al.          Expires: September 23, 2004               [Page 3]

Internet Draft    Remote Discovery in SLP via DNS SRV     March 23, 2004


3.2. SLP DAs for Remote Service Discovery

   A UA discovers desired services in a given remote DNS domain by
   unicasting requests to DAs in that domain. The UA uses remote DAs
   according to these prioritized rules: (1) using DAs which it has been
   configured with, and (2) using DAs which it has discovered via DNS
   SRV.

3.3. SLP Scopes for Remote Service Discovery

   As SLP scopes are intended to be used only within one administrative
   domain, they are likely incomprehensible to users outside of the
   administrative domain. Thus, any remotely accessible service MUST be
   registered in the "default" scope, but it MAY be registered in other
   scopes at the same time. Similarly, all DAs advertised via DNS SRV
   MUST serve the "default" scope, but they MAY serve other scopes at
   the same time. As a result, users wishing to discover services at a
   remote DNS domain SHOULD only search the "default" scope.

4. Steps for Remote Service Discovery

   The steps for a User Agent U to discover desired services in a remote
   DNS domain D are as follows.

   (1) U makes a DNS query for QNAME=_slpda._tcp.D (or
       QNAME=_slpda._udp.D), QCLASS=IN, and QTYPE=SRV. Then U gets a
       list of DNS SRV RRs (referred to as L) in a DNS reply, which
       gives all remotely accessible DAs in D.

   (2) U selects a DA X from L based on the priority and weight
       information per RFC 2782.

   (3) U queries X in the "default" scope to discover desired services
       in D.

   Note that the services discovered in the above steps may not
   necessarily be remotely accessible.

5. Security Considerations

   To support remote service discovery, a domain exposes its service
   information to the Internet. Standard SLP authentication SHOULD be
   used to protect valuable service information. First, there is a risk
   that any SA could advertise any service on a DA accessible from the
   Internet. Such a DA SHOULD reject all registrations and
   deregistrations that cannot be authenticated. Secondly, to avoid
   disclosing unintended service information to remote users, a DA
   accessible from the Internet SHOULD at least authenticate service



Zhao, et al.          Expires: September 23, 2004               [Page 4]

Internet Draft    Remote Discovery in SLP via DNS SRV     March 23, 2004


   queries that are not in the "default" scope. In addition, the
   security considerations for DNS SRV [RFC2782] apply to this document.
   Also, the DNS security extensions [RFC 2535] SHOULD be used to
   provide origin authentication and integrity protection for DNS data.

6. Applicability Statements

   This specification describes remote service discovery in SLP via DNS
   SRV. It facilitates discovering services at a remote DNS domain if
   the domain name is known via a priori knowledge. However, it does not
   intend to solve the problem of Internet-wide service discovery.

   Users should be aware of two constraints in using DNS SRV to discover
   SLP DAs: (1) they SHOULD only use DNS SRV to discover DAs in the
   "default" scope, and (2) an administrator may choose to only register
   a subset of all DAs in the "default" scope via DNS SRV. Thus, to
   discover local DAs, implementations MUST use the standard SLP
   mechanisms per RFC 2608. In addition, implementations supporting this
   specification MAY use DNS SRV to discover local DAs in the "default"
   scope.

   As SLP scopes are not intended to be used outside the local
   administrative domain, all remote service discovery in SLP SHOULD be
   carried only in the "default" scope.

   Notice that the services discovered via DNS SRV and remote SLP DAs
   may not necessarily be remotely accessible.

7. IANA Considerations

   In the DNS SRV RRs for SLP DA services, the symbolic name for the
   Service field is "slpda", supported protocols are "tcp" and "udp".
   The following values are to be registered with IANA:

       Service Field      Protocol Field     Reference
       -------------      --------------     ---------
           slpda                tcp          [RFCxxxx]
           slpda                udp          [RFCxxxx]

8. Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank Bernard Aboba, Kevin Arnold, Steven
   Bellovin, Ted Hardie, James Kempf, Thomas Narten, Erik Nordmark and
   Jon Peterson for their valuable comments.

9. Normative References

   [RFC2608] E. Guttman, C. Perkins, J. Veizades and M. Day, "Service



Zhao, et al.          Expires: September 23, 2004               [Page 5]

Internet Draft    Remote Discovery in SLP via DNS SRV     March 23, 2004


       Location Protocol, Version 2", RFC 2608, June 1999.

   [RFC2782] A. Gulbrandsen, P. Vixie and L. Esibov, "A DNS RR for
       specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)", RFC 2782,
       February 2000.

   [RFC2119] S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
       Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [NUMBERS] http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers

   [RFC1034] P. Mockapetris, "Domain Names - Concepts and Facilities",
       STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987.

   [RFC1035] P. Mockapetris, "Domain Names - Implementation and
       Specification", STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987.

   [RFC2535] D. Eastlake, "Domain Name System Security Extensions",
       RFC 2535, March 1999.

10. Authors' Addresses

   Weibin Zhao
   Department of Computer Science
   Columbia University
   1214 Amsterdam Avenue, MC 0401
   New York, NY 10027-7003

   EMail: zwb@cs.columbia.edu


   Henning Schulzrinne

   Department of Computer Science
   Columbia University
   1214 Amsterdam Avenue, MC 0401
   New York, NY 10027-7003

   EMail: hgs@cs.columbia.edu


   Erik Guttman
   Sun Microsystems
   Eichhoelzelstr. 7
   74915 Waibstadt
   Germany

   EMail: Erik.Guttman@sun.com



Zhao, et al.          Expires: September 23, 2004               [Page 6]

Internet Draft    Remote Discovery in SLP via DNS SRV     March 23, 2004


   Chatschik Bisdikian
   IBM Corp.
   Thomas J. Watson Research Center
   19 Skyline Drive
   Hawthorne, NY 10532, USA

   EMail: bisdik@us.ibm.com


   William F. Jerome
   IBM Corp.
   Thomas J. Watson Research Center
   19 Skyline Drive
   Hawthorne, NY 10532, USA

   EMail: wfj@us.ibm.com


11. Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).  All Rights Reserved.

   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
   English.

   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
   BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
   HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
   MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.






Zhao, et al.          Expires: September 23, 2004               [Page 7]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.109, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/