Re: [dnssd] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnssd-requirements-05: (with COMMENT)

[Ralph Droms <[e-mail]>]

Doug - Here is my summary of what I understand to be your concerns with draft-ietf-dnssd-requirements-05:

1) A change from link-scope mDNS SD to a larger scope may result in the existence and address of a device being made more widely available than currently expected.

2) Some devices and networks are incapable of defending themselves against unwanted access or other attacks once the address of the device to be attacked is known.

3) Use of RFC 4193 is a way to protect against attacks enabled by the increased scope of discovery envisioned by extended DNS-SD.

You expressed these concerns during WG development and review of draft-ietf-dnssd-requirements.  Tim and I judged the consensus of the WG to be in support of advancing the document to the IESG, based in part on the following analysis:

Points 1 and 2 are answered by the third paragraph of section 6.1.  For completeness, the last sentence of that paragraph might be extended to include "and protection against other forms of attack".

Point 3 tries to mandate a solution through a specific deployment mechanism and is, therefore, out of scope for a requirements document.  It may also be more broadly out of scope of the dnssd charter, which addresses just DNS-based service discovery and does not include mandating network deployment requirements as part of a solution.

If you do not agree that your concerns have been answered by this analysis, please state the basis for your continued concern, so that we can judge rough consensus on support for publication of the document.

- Ralph