Re: [core] Endpoint Client Name / Endpoint Name in RD draft

[Hannes Tschofenig <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jim,

I had various comments:

First, I argue that the LwM2M spec and the RD draft should be in sync regarding the name of the parameter.

Second, I believe that the security consideration section is correct in the threat description but came to the wrong conclusion regarding the use of the parameter. In essence, the parameter should be optional and probably only used for debugging.

Third, I went as far as saying that the endpoint name parameter should actually be removed altogether. I can already see how those deploying it will get it wrong and will introduce security problems.

Ciao
Hannes

From: Jim Schaad [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: 04 April 2018 21:06
To: Hannes Tschofenig; 'Jaime Jiménez'
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [core] Endpoint Client Name / Endpoint Name in RD draft

Hannes,

I am not completely clear.  Are you saying that the RD should not have the endpoint name parameter as a defined property or something else?

Jim


From: core <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Hannes Tschofenig
Sent: Wednesday, April 4, 2018 10:41 AM
To: Jaime Jiménez <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> WG <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [core] Endpoint Client Name / Endpoint Name in RD draft

Hi Jaime,

using IP address and port for an endpoint (client) name would not be a good idea.
In general, it was not a good idea to have this parameter defined in the first place. It might actually be better to remove it altogether.

Ciao
Hannes

From: Jaime Jiménez [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: 04 April 2018 17:32
To: Hannes Tschofenig
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> WG; Carsten Bormann
Subject: Re: [core] Endpoint Client Name / Endpoint Name in RD draft

Hi,

Note that endpoint can refer to both source and destination, being and IP:port in its simplest form:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7252#page-6

The fact that LWM2M swaps those role names might actually add to the confusion, probably OMA LWM2M should be the one changing the terminology as the device is mostly a “server” hosting resources and only is a “client” during bootstrapping and registration. We could have used terms like “servient” instead but it might be too late for that.

Ciao!
- - Jaime Jiménez

On 4 Apr 2018, at 16.41, Hannes Tschofenig <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

Hi all,

I noticed that the term “endpoint name” is used in the IETF RD draft while the OMA LwM2M spec uses the term “endpoint client name”. Endpoint is a confusing term since it is used differently in the CoAP spec than in the Web environment.

For this reason I believe it would be better to use the term “endpoint client name” also in the RD draft. This would improve alignment between the two specs.

Ciao
Hannes

IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you. _______________________________________________
core mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core

IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.