Subject: decision item for ZEROCONF WG: What is zeroconf?

From: Erik Guttman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 09:04:19 +0200 (MET DST)

In my comments on draft 4 of the requirements, I objected to
the text in draft defining what a zeroconf protocol is.  This
is of such fundamental importance to the WG, I want a formal 
decision.

The definition in draft 03 was:

   A zeroconf protocol requires no user configuration and does not
   rely on information received from a centralized server.
 
   A non-zeroconf protocol requires user configuration or relies on
   information received from a centralized server.

The definition in draft 04 is:

     A zeroconf protocol requires no user configuration.  
    
     A non-zeroconf protocol requires user configuration. 

I believe this is a wrong turn.  The 03 definition is far closer to
what I think we mean by 'zero configuration' - namely, a host comes
up with no configuration but contains software which can collaboratively
obtain configuration state from the network.  If there is a server on the
network which configures the host (a client-server dynamic configuration
protocol), the host is not collaborating to configure itself.  We no longer
are generating configuration but obtaining it. 

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.)

             ***********************************************
             ***********************************************
             ***       For WG mailing list approval      ***
             ***                                         ***
             ***  Decide on which formulation of the     ***
             ***  definition of a zeroconf protocol.     ***
             ***                                         ***
             ***  Choose version 03, 04 or Erik's.       ***
             ***                                         ***
             ***********************************************
             ***********************************************

Please send your comments to the list in the next two weeks.

Erik

---

From: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 10:36:54 -0400

Given the choices offered, I would go with -03.  Erik's version has
merit but I think it is too wordy, I'd prefer to minimize the latin,
and I see no problem with zeroconf using "configuration" burned into
hardware such as serial numbers, MAC addresses, public-private key
pairs, etc. although perhpas that is not what we mean by
"configuration" and is more like "identity"...

Thanks,
Donald

From:  Erik Guttman <[email-masked]>
Date:  Wed, 9 Aug 2000 09:04:19 +0200 (MET DST)
To:  [email-masked]
Cc:  [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

---

From: Richard Johnson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 10:32:07 -0700 (PDT)

>      A non-zeroconf protocol requires user configuration. 

Draft #3 is much closer to the original vision of zeroconf.  I keep
going back to two people trying to share files on a train where they
met.  Draft #3 specifically denys the existence of a central server,
which is what you would need in this situation.  Draft #4 would allow
that the protocols may only work if a central server exists.  This
would not be the case between two people meeting in a random location.
Nix the central server and you have something a LOT more useful.

/raj