Subject: Re: [dnssd] [Last-Call] Iotdir last call review of draft-ietf-dnssd-prireq-04
From: Christian Huitema <[email-masked]>
To: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>, Samita Chakrabarti <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], DNSSD <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 10:45:09 -0800
List-Id: "Discussion of extensions to DNS-based service discovery for routed networks." <dnssd.ietf.org>

On 2/13/2020 9:47 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:

> 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.

We tried to address that in the section 3.4, Operational Considerations.
Samita, do you think we should have some specific text there? I am
always worried about forcing a trade-off between privacy and power
consumption. There may be devices such as sensors in buildings for which
the privacy considerations are minimum, but there are clear requirements
for any "wearable" device. Ted's example of a pacemaker is an obvious
one, but even something benign as "smart jewelry" would have obvious
implications.

-- Christian Huitema