Re: [dnssd] Call for WG Adoption: draft-huitema-dnssd-privacy-01

[Tim Chown <[e-mail]>]

Hi Daniel,

I’ve popped an email directly to Terry to ask about the pairing work.

At the moment, keep working on it; it shouldn’t be a big deal to merge/split drafts if/when necessary :)  Do feel free to ask open questions you have to the WG list, so they can give opinions and advice.

Tim

On 26 Jul 2016, at 13:49, Daniel Kaiser <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

Hi Tim,

we could write a 00 draft on pairing which might help
the AD and the WG to decide whether pairing should be

1) integrated in the existing privacy draft,
2) addressed in a separate draft within the dnssd group, or
3) addressed in another working group.

As there is consensus that we should address pairing,
I will definitely continue working on that :).


"The adoption call for the main document will still need to take into account that the pairing work needs to be done."

Is there something I should do?


kind regards
Daniel


On 07/26/2016 11:56 AM, Tim Chown wrote:

Hi Daniel,

On 26 Jul 2016, at 10:50, Daniel Kaiser <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

We started working on a new document on pairing.
A reference to this new pairing document will be substituted for
the pairing part in the privacy document.

Further, we will remove the part on the simple design from the
privacy document making it more concise.

I don’t think a strong view was expressed either way in Berlin as to whether the work should be in one document or two. But if our AD does recommend taking the pairing work to a different WG, then abstracting the work to a separate doc will of course be useful.

The adoption call for the main document will still need to take into account that the pairing work needs to be done.

Tim

On 07/26/2016 10:28 AM, Martin Thomson wrote:

What is the status of the pairing piece of this work?  None of this
can work without addressing that portion.  The document contains some
ideas, but these are quite nebulous and certainly not sufficient to
deploy an interoperable solution for this.

(I'm generally supportive of this work, but I want to make sure that
everyone understands the scope and magnitude of the work involved
here.)

On 25 July 2016 at 16:16, Tim Chown <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]> wrote:


Hi,

At the meeting in Berlin, there was a positive reaction to the "Privacy
Extensions for DNS-SD” draft,
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-huitema-dnssd-privacy-01.

While only a small number of people had read it in detail, those who had
read it expressed a desire for the WG to adopt the draft.

This email therefore begins a two-week formal dnssd mail list call for
adoption of the draft by the WG. Please send any comments, for or against,
to the dnssd WG list. If you indicated support in the meeting, feel free to
reaffirm this, and add any comments.

The call ends on Monday 8th August.

The document status in the data tracker can be found at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-huitema-dnssd-privacy/.

Note that the WG in which the specifics of the pairing protocol will be
developed will be reviewed by our AD. On the one had it is a generic
mechanism that may be better defined in a security WG, on the other we
should have a critical mass of people to get the work done here, if the
draft is adopted.

Tim




_______________________________________________
dnssd mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnssd



_______________________________________________
dnssd mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnssd


_______________________________________________
dnssd mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnssd