Re: [dnssd] Iotdir last call review of draft-ietf-dnssd-prireq-04

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Thu, 13 February 2020 17:47 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Original-To: dnssd@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnssd@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC1E4120058 for <dnssd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 09:47:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id c8REqsqGWUzC for <dnssd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 09:47:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf1-x431.google.com (mail-pf1-x431.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::431]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 76F951207FC for <dnssd@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 09:47:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf1-x431.google.com with SMTP id q8so3423305pfh.7 for <dnssd@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 09:47:19 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=zWhsjF/jxtkoPFR0f2JKDHUm9cHqApR8uoYs/0RgD+Q=; b=fFTDzYsJqmPcl9YbLiXSzgacjQJmzwUiWO1eRJFGKQCd+WPYUv5yb6cnkqYBJN+lde U1wTb0OViKJkD3nmCNbOWxb1wDf5p8ovTXU6/Xhlngm9nX7WthVgtmEcVXddkJ+WZfuF Op7VywNwRcAKQFUMksiLtiT560fVF3iJQIbEpr56ppOY9Fl0bSSWwwaHkrozs4wXsfu4 Jq+yhCjidxuYdY+uM9FRBiuCdSUj7AtVopjcLeM2lDxYo7ugRGdI9lXM4wjCeshDiRyH jMDdY6fqVMzywf7aM0UbO7Xdy/qB4J/rT1N7HtTW/1ZWqbq6qH32VR00C8F224DMIGhJ ZThQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=zWhsjF/jxtkoPFR0f2JKDHUm9cHqApR8uoYs/0RgD+Q=; b=U2+q/eBEiucFyXNcLScbLFM2EzKzMsqpSIeRcDuQwSxvxKn8pIC/b9nycL/C7LpyqI njEtVUZZIokYUyrP4ygw1xJyXLlWPl7Eow5eLQdMgGQSlnJ7IB2mxaTC5zJ3X/BmauIG Qpv0tWBSoYkBXzMA5FlgQXueEMHAg72+NJysy8uglH8poU0kmaADzTf4/UCtkl1B0CdM Qv2obLLC0kqBYrVWSQUe3hD95iF2tJRz7xe5U1OU3h2v7OVr2jBXFr5ZuvVTn3FN3U7O aMBe1QnJs/Y6TgDilFs/8cSwRzS6f5BbuX5YCH6j0ropxS48H1ErHEkK2PWshyPeN1Wl vo9g==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUK7yKpTXmR0hFscH2BBuoNcORTNOdyzxg2GZRFHEEQCwivbQUy VfTAUN7RHdyv3YpXVg+Bvb58Kg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqznZPi5yomeLpuW2wyQr728bc2jWCCE3FpxXdMYZF7lzg+kpKK57jvbo+BlrcpAeRrbE6fZFA==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:a807:: with SMTP id o7mr14942985pgf.407.1581616038962; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 09:47:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.16.140.189] ([144.178.28.13]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y127sm3861247pfg.22.2020.02.13.09.47.17 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 13 Feb 2020 09:47:18 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3608.60.0.2.5\))
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
In-Reply-To: <158161511905.20519.9851954062722453601@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 09:47:17 -0800
Cc: draft-ietf-dnssd-prireq.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, DNSSD <dnssd@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E857C79A-5330-4A11-ADB0-86226B5713F3@fugue.com>
References: <158161511905.20519.9851954062722453601@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: Samita Chakrabarti <samitac.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.60.0.2.5)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnssd/1llP6_WzJi4PmKX34W1ygQPKjWI>
Subject: Re: [dnssd] Iotdir last call review of draft-ietf-dnssd-prireq-04
X-BeenThere: dnssd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of extensions to DNS-based service discovery for routed networks." <dnssd.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnssd>, <mailto:dnssd-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnssd/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnssd@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnssd-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnssd>, <mailto:dnssd-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 17:47:22 -0000

100% agree with your first point.

Regarding your second point, one of the classic use cases for dns-sd privacy is a pacemaker.  This is a battery-operated device, but the user should not have to broadcast the fact that they have a pacemaker installed whenever they are walking around out in the world.

So if you think that the requirements really do not address the power consumption issue, that is something that should be added to the document as a requirement, rather than saying that in such cases privacy can be optional.

> On Feb 13, 2020, at 9:31 AM, Samita Chakrabarti via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Samita Chakrabarti
> Review result: Ready with Nits
> 
> I have reviewed draft-ietf-dnssd-prireq-04.
> 
> The document is informative and clear with a few editorial nits on section 4.1
> through 4.3.
> 
> I have reviewed from the IoT devices perspective  and most likely for the
> consumer devices that might be present in the public network and are using
> shared network technologies (wireless or wired). The threat model are
> applicable to them. Section 3.1 describes implications for wearable and  server
> related privacy issue.  Perhaps a small paragraph might be added in this
> section or in the introduction calling out possible privacy and security
> threats on personal IoT devices in the public places ( that might act as a
> dns-sd client).
> 
> At the same time, considering limited processing capabilities, battery saving
> concern considerations, privacy related extra processing of messages from the
> dns-sd server should not be mandated for the IoT devices. Depending on the
> device capabilities, the feature can be configurable and the user can turn
> on/off  at their need; additionally some iot devices may not care about the
> privacy at all.
> 
> So, a few additional lines on IoT implications for the threat model and yet
> flexibility of implementation of the dns-sd IOT client may be mentioned in the
> document to clarify the IoT devices in the shared wireless/wired medium.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dnssd mailing list
> dnssd@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnssd