Advancing SLPv2 to IETF Draft Standard

SLPv2 is currently an IETF Proposed Standard.  The goal is to advance SLPv2 to the status of Draft Standard.   In order to do this,  a report has to be filed that demonstrates at least two interoperable implementations for each feature the protocol supports.  It is possible to make clarifications or to drop features which cannot be implemented or which turned out to be problematic, as long as backward compatibility is maintained.

Thus,  there are 4 work items (click on the work item link to view details):

Revising RFC 2608 and related specifications

Proposed revisions (please subscribe to srvloc-discuss to propose or discuss specifcation revisions):

IMPORTANT:  The only way to make an addition or change to the table above is to email the srvloc-discuss mailing list.   Please subscribe to the list before proposing or commenting on a already proposed revision.  This will enable you to monitor discussion and reply to the list in a way that the discussion can be appropriately archived.
 
 
Revision ID Description Status* Discussion Links
rev-2608-1 PR Lists Optional ACCEPTED proposed: 1
lastcall: 1
conclusion: 1
rev-2608-2 Limit requests to either one term or a list of conjoined terms.  Disallow '!' and '|' operations. REJECTED proposed: 1
discussion: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
conclusion: 1
rev-2608-3 Disallow wildcards in Service Request predicates  like (x=some words follow*) REJECTED proposed: 1
discussion: 1, 2
lastcall: 1
conclusion: 1
rev-2608-4 Recommend mesh enhanced support to DAs. ACCEPTED proposed: 1
lastcall: 1
discussion: 1
conclusion: 1
rev-2608-5 Deprecate attribute tag list wildcards ACCEPTED proposed: 1
lastcall: 1
conclusion: 1
rev-2608-6 Deprecate service deregistration tag list wildcards ACCEPTED proposed: 1
lastcall: 1
conclusion: 1
rev-2608-7 Deprecate attribute requests by type ACCEPTED proposed: 1
lastcall: 1
conclusion: 1
rev-2608-8 Use MADCAP nested scope option REJECTED proposed: 1
discussion: 1
lastcall: 1
conclusion: 1
rev-2608-9 Change the scope configuration rules ACCEPTED proposed: 1
lastcall: 1
conclusion: 1
rev-2608-10 Use literal string matching (not requiring elision of spaces) ACCEPTED proposed: 1
conclusion: 1
rev-2608-11 Deprecate incremental registration and de-registration ACCEPTED proposed: 1
discussion: 1
lastcall: 1
conclusion: 1
rev-2608-12 Allow reduced search filter support in SAs ACCEPTED proposed: 1
discussion: 1,2,3
lastcall: 1
conclusion: 1
rev-2608-13 Simplify the scope usage in SrvReg/SrvDeReg messages ACCEPTED proposed: 1
discussion: 1,2,3
lastcall: 1
conclusion: 1
rev-2608-14 Clarify symantics of Attribute Rqst/Rply  ACCEPTED proposed: 1
discussion: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16
lastcall: 1
conclusion: 1
rev-2609-1 ABNF template grammar, Definition of Service Template, and Net-Transducer:Thermometer example PROPOSED proposed: 1
rev-2610-1 Deprecate RFC 2610 MANDATORY scope flags ACCEPTED proposed: 1
lastcall: 1
conclusion: 1
rev-2610-2 Clarify the use of option 79 for UAs and SAs ACCEPTED proposed: 1
lastcall: 1
conclusion: 1
rev-2610-3 DAs ignore option 79 ACCEPTED proposed:1
lastcall: 1
conclusion: 1
rev-2610-4 Clarify the use of empty string in option 79 ACCEPTED proposed:1
conclusion: 1
rev-2614-1 Number of SLPAttrCallback() calls ACCEPTED proposed: 1
discussion: 1
lastcall: 1
conclusion:  1
rev-2614-2 SLPFreeURL() should be SLPFree() ACCEPTED proposed: 1
lastcall: 1
conclusion: 1
rev-2614-3 SLPGet Property() could cause memory leaks ACCEPTED proposed: 1
discussion: 1
lastcall: 1
conclusion: 1
rev-2614-4 Addition of SLPParseAttrs Function ACCEPTED proposed: 1
discussion: 1
lastcall:1
conclusion: 1
rev-2614-5 URL Format issues ACCEPTED proposed: 1
lastcall: 1
conclusion: 1
rev-2614-6 Configured vs. discovered scope list ACCEPTED proposed: 1
lastcall: 1
rev-2614-7 Sensible scope defaulting mechanism required ACCEPTED proposed: 1
lastcall: 1
rev-2614-8 Allow scope list to be set in call to SLPReg() REJECTED proposed: 1
discussion: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
conclusion: 1
rev-2614-9  single Java package name ACCEPTED proposed: 1
discussion: 1, 2
lastcall: 1
rev-2614-10  Use of "special" service types in SLPFindSrvs() ACCEPTED proposed: 1
lastcall: 1
rev-2614-11  standardize SA server/SA client interaction ACCEPTED proposed: 1
lastcall: 1
conclusion: 1
rev-2614-12  modify the API to allow unicast to SAs ACCEPTED proposed: 1
lastcall: 1
rev-2614-13  allow NULL to serve as no value ACCEPTED proposed: 1
discussion: 1, 2
lastcall: 1
rev-2614-14  changes to the API that would expose security REJECTED proposed: 1
lastcall: 1,2
rev-2614-15  how to handle extensions ACCEPTED proposed: 1
discussion: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15
lastcall: 1
conclusion: 1
rev-2614-16 Remove "scopes=" from  serialized registration file format ACCEPTED proposed: 1
lastcall: 1
rev-2614-17 Add new "useScopes" properties REJECTED proposed: 1
discussion: 1, 2
conclusion: 1
rev-2614-18 Allow a UA to do user scoping even if a scope configuration is available ACCEPTED proposed: 1
lastcall: 1
rev-2614-19 Revise definition of net.slp.useScopes PROPOSED proposed: 1
lastcall: 1,2,3,4
rev-2614-20 Change SLPFindAttrs() 2nd Parameter Description ACCEPTED proposed: 1
concusion: 1
rev-2614-21 Deprecate fresh flag parameter in SrvReg() ACCEPTED proposed: 1
concusion: 1
rev-2614-22 SLPDelAttrs() deprecated ACCEPTED proposed: 1
concusion: 1
rev-2614-23 net.slp.securityEnabled is deprecated ACCEPTED proposed: 1
concusion: 1
rev-2614-24 Add net.slp.unicastSARequest property DUPLICATE
(see rev-2614-12)		 proposed: 1
duplicate: 1
rev-2614-25 Add net.slp.enableDADiscovery, deprecate net.slp.passiveDADetection PROPOSED proposed: 1
discussion: 1,2,3
rev-2614-26 Rename net.slp.useScopes and net.slp.DAAddresses PROPOSED proposed: 1
discussion: 1,2,3,4
rev-2614-27 Change name of net.slp.isBroadcastOnly LASTCALL proposed: 1
discussion: 1,2
lastcall: 1
rev-2614-28 Add net.slp.useSAAddresses LASTCALL proposed: 1
discussion: 1,2,3,4,5,6
lastcall: 1
rev-2614-29 dynamic creation of registration scopes PROPOSED proposed: 1
* Status states are defined as the following:
PROPOSED - Open for discussion.
LASTCALL - Final stages of discussion.  Will be shortly be set to REJECTED or ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED - Will be added to RFC.  Further discussion discouraged.
REJECTED - Will not be added to RFC.   Further discussion discouraged.

Things to do:

Organizing an interoperability workshop

Things to do

Preparation and filing of an interoperability report

 

IESG review, IETF last call and other formal procedures


Project - Standards - Top
Erik Guttman, 2001
Source Forge Logo