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

Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <> Thu, 12 July 2018 21:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64726131192 for <>; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 14:27:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zNfc62MYM6Ur for <>; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 14:27:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 709B813118E for <>; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 14:27:45 -0700 (PDT)
From: Toke =?utf-8?Q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= <>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; 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 <>
Cc: David Schinazi <>, dnssd <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 23:27:41 +0200
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
Message-ID: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dnssd] The DNSSD WG has placed draft-sctl-service-registration in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of extensions to DNS-based service discovery for routed networks." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 21:27:47 -0000

Ted Lemon <> 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 ;)