<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/16/2020 7:42 PM, Richard Hanley
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAH1kD+bVgh0kjUt7bkt+7G5-0G66hneto-Ks2o6iNDXKxLsN8w@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
> The members on the call really wanted to encourage
OpenBMC to implement <br>
> SSDP instead.<br>
<br>
It probably isn't a bad thing to be able to support SSDP,
don't get me<br>
wrong, but "instead"? Why would we want to take away
service <br>
advertisement functionality, unless someone wants to
explicitly disable it?<br>
<br>
I can understand if they don't want to document, in the
standard, a way to<br>
advertise the Redfish service over mDNS, but isn't that a
different<br>
problem from what we're asking for? Aren't we asking for a
method to<br>
manage the enablement of services on the BMC, specifically
our mDNS<br>
service? So, if we still have mDNS, don't we need a way to
configure it<br>
through Redfish?<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAH1kD+bVgh0kjUt7bkt+7G5-0G66hneto-Ks2o6iNDXKxLsN8w@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>I see your point here. I guess there might be some
implicit assumption that adding it to a schema implies
endorsement elsewhere. <br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Yeah, from Jeff's reply on the thread, "The concern is if we add
this to ManagerNetworkProtocol, it would seem to indicate that
Redfish supports mDNS/DNS-SD for discovery of Redfish services,
which it does not (SSDP is the standard discovery mechanism). "<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAH1kD+bVgh0kjUt7bkt+7G5-0G66hneto-Ks2o6iNDXKxLsN8w@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>Discovery is probably an area where supporting a
diversity of protocols is better than making a single
choice.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>A bit over my head here, but I believe Redfish's interoperability
concern about supporting a second discovery protocol comes from
then all Redfish implementations need to implement both otherwise
different Redfish implementations aren't discoverable. This can be
expanded to OpenBMC's use of mDNS vs Redfish's SSDP and hence the
ask for OpenBMC to implement SSDP. A concern of compatibility of
OpenBMC-based Redfish implementations vs other Redfish
implementations. <br>
<br>
These are all good questions. Anyone can sign up for an account
and post to the Redfish forum if you are interested in pursuing. <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://redfishforum.com/thread/267/add-avahi-managernetworkprotocol">https://redfishforum.com/thread/267/add-avahi-managernetworkprotocol</a><br>
<br>
Forum posts, along with new issues and proposals, are discussed on
the main Redfish calls, Tuesday at 1:00 PM CT and Thursday at 2:00
PM CT if your company is a supporting member of Redfish.<br>
<br>
Thanks, <br>
Gunnar<br>
</p>
</body>
</html>