Re: [dnssd] The DNSSD WG has placed draft-sctl-service-registration in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@toke.dk> Thu, 12 July 2018 21:27 UTC

Return-Path: <toke@toke.dk>
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 64726131192 for <dnssd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 14:27:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=toke.dk
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 zNfc62MYM6Ur for <dnssd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 14:27:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.toke.dk (mail.toke.dk [52.28.52.200]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 709B813118E for <dnssd@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 14:27:45 -0700 (PDT)
From: Toke =?utf-8?Q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= <toke@toke.dk>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=toke.dk; s=20161023; t=1531430862; bh=UWM350jembLn3aJV4Fh5d8TbpLtiCFMBsWCJUMMaoJQ=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=zNnmVzmnq03f0GxerZ6DEi/ETZbkYi4pO3WUuUYLb17giwNGFNaIbtXzF26E/Ge9H snbEuRLg8JhLurrAoD1uDAIaVJIFxANUXsU0+fEa29mXnEkEsRpiYaSDWDfCz1a7nQ 47WDpyM9G+/KacDhlsCL01l8IqLjjIQqX0yEgZEe9VC17GgXGK3a2EXJC1uHVu+HNx sz04JBs/gYXK68kt/PdYIufbbZPBzbNpWGsY0kXvcRckKJQS8tg5lHMyxJznyKSE3T J7BLPW681Wv9tyrwVPJhTeJQT4HBdmaWCerV6cImL0/X5zhTZPB/qcE5pv5h6oPnfo a4Rpeuv4ze59A==
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Cc: David Schinazi <dschinazi@apple.com>, dnssd <dnssd@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAPt1N1=npjQS-AyuxtZ3DGLJw12-MA1NZa633maXbJs98rEHUQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <153064569308.5111.7449468818446130425.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <EB70166C-B64B-4509-909D-76978CA00A36@apple.com> <87lgare65v.fsf@toke.dk> <AC270951-0AA4-45D0-9F1A-83067489BF27@fugue.com> <87in5td3ar.fsf@toke.dk> <A667C059-FEBB-4159-A053-0B7AFE35F5FD@fugue.com> <87r2kbcl3h.fsf@toke.dk> <CAPt1N1=kNRiNLMEkSjMmcG+U5Bg6OACkQTAkO6t1b-rzYnza0w@mail.gmail.com> <87fu0obuua.fsf@toke.dk> <CAPt1N1=ktPp-T8fg17fAaT=FznDytnXr2N3Uz1rUL+En_QOKUA@mail.gmail.com> <874lh4bicx.fsf@toke.dk> <CAPt1N1mLA3knwxW0R9Ayb29Og4hh=y+6X9OaPSZW58noYv-4+A@mail.gmail.com> <871sc8b2n9.fsf@toke.dk> <CAPt1N1=npjQS-AyuxtZ3DGLJw12-MA1NZa633maXbJs98rEHUQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 23:27:41 +0200
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
Message-ID: <87tvp49mb6.fsf@toke.dk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnssd/HGOrGAV01khtj4IY-YG1VQrHKJg>
Subject: Re: [dnssd] The DNSSD WG has placed draft-sctl-service-registration in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"
X-BeenThere: dnssd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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, 12 Jul 2018 21:27:47 -0000

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> writes:

> The only reason I think it would be a serious problem for a service to
> register an IP address other than its own is that it could be used as
> a way to wedge in an attack.

Right. But if we want to protect against that we'd need to only allow
registrations for the IP we are talking to; which means separate
registrations for IPv4 and IPv6. And for v4 it would probably mean a
requirement for on-link presence, since anything that is not on-link is
likely to have at least one layer of NAT in-between...

> The real sticky wicket is that you can't update two zones in the same
> update, but that's not really what you were talking about.

Ah, right, then it makes sense. I may have been ignoring this part of
the spec in my implementation ;)

-Toke