PSI Working Group:
*Alan Berkema *Gail Songer *Dave Hall
*Jerry Thasher *Harry Lewis *Ted Tronson
Peter Mierau *Peter Zehler Paul Tykodi
Bob Taylor Don Levinstone Lee Farrell
Don Wright Kirk Ocke *Ira Mcdonald
*Amir Shahindoust
* = attendance
10/08/02 Agenda
1) Review Harry's e-mail questions
2) Review the use of port 3700
3) Review ToDo list
4) Call for action
Minutes:
As a prelude Ira suggested that we move PSI defined schemas into a seperate
directory. Dave mentioned that the spec already calls for them to be ps/0.95
so we will put them there.
Action: Move them
Owner: Alan
Status: Open
1) Review Harry's e-mail questions
The first question revolves around the use of DocumentTypeSupportQuery
and what it means if the TargetDeviceidentifier is NULL and is this useful?
After much good discussion we decided that we can really do this same thing
with
GetServiceAttributes as long as we explicitly provide an example of how to
do it.
So DocumentTypeSupportQuery will be removed from the spec.
Action: Write up some examples for GetServiceAttributes
Owner: Dave
Status: Open
Harry's other question was around his new use case, which we agreed
was illustrated as Use model 5 in the requirements doc. The question was
about
RegisterTargetDevice vs. AssociateTargetDevice. These are not intended to
used
together and enable the different use models we have.
Action: Write up a an Applicability statement for AssociateTargetDevice
useful in firewall scenario etc. and is redundant otherwise.
Owner: Dave
Status: Open
As we looked at use model % in the requirements doc, we noticed that
numbering on the
arrows were off.
Action: Fix Numbers and post
Owner: Alan
Status: Open
2) Review the use of port 3700
PSI has proposed asking IAN for a static port assignment we are calling port
3700 (IANA will probably dictate what actually get).
We debated this vs. just using a dynamic port. Ira had some valid reasons
for
a static port in data aggregation scenarios with routers and gateways.
Decided that a static port will be used for QueryInterafceEndpoints.
Other discovery protocols will be used to get the hostname and could return
a dynamic port. If a port is provide further queries will use that dynamic
port.
Otherwise the static port will be used.
Doesn't this still open us up to the problems with dynamic ports?
Action: Provide a brief write that explains why dynamic ports have issues.
Also could get a brief write up on why overloading port 80 is not a good
idea.
Owner: Ira
Status: Open
3) Review ToDo list
Dave walked us through the ToDo list see spec 0.90 an the
seem to be under control.
4) Call for action
We are currently at rev 0.90 and it's time to do your homework and to
take a close look at the spec. Harry set a good example with his e-mail
questions. We will post intervening revs and a 0.94 candidate
2 weeks before the F2F. Fixes from the F2F will be incorporate into the
0.95 candidate.
Action: Review the spec.
Owner: All
Status: Open
Thanks,
Alan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 09 2002 - 18:49:58 EDT