Re: [homenet] About Ted's naming architecture presentation and document

[james woodyatt <[e-mail]>]

On Dec 1, 2016, at 07:52, Ray Hunter (v6ops) <[e-mail]> wrote:
> james woodyatt wrote:
>> 
>> If anybody is currently shipping, or has announced plans to ship, any kind of home automation device that does this, please speak up on the mailing list. I’d like to calibrate my perhaps mistaken apprehension that nobody would seriously consider doing this. Everyone I know in this field plans to do this by providing a single public rendezvous point with high availability servers that communicate in turn to home automation controllers acting as private clients.
> 
> RFC3724.
> 
> >  End user choice and empowerment, integrity of service, support for trust, and "good network citizen behavior" are all properties that have developed as a consequence of the end-to-end principle. 

Funny. I would have cherry-picked *this* quote from that RFC:

>> These conflicts [between service providers, end users, etc.] will inevitably be reflected in the Internet architecture going forward.  Some of these conflicts are impossible to resolve on a technical level, and would not even be desirable, because they involve social and legal choices that the IETF is not empowered to make […]

> Rendezvous points are themselves an attack vector/ anti-privacy snooping vector/ commercial lock-in/ convenience, depending on your point of view.

Indeed. “Depending on your point of view.” Hence, the quote I picked above as a counterpoint.

> So please let's empower the end user to either "opt in" or "opt out”.

>  <https://www.postbox-inc.com/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=siglink&utm_campaign=reach>
Already done and done. End users are free to “opt out” by not using the products and services that require the use of rendezvous points to facilitate end-to-end communication between home networks and roaming mobile handsets. Alternatively, they may build and run their own bespoke gear that works differently according to whatever optional security method they are managing themselves at the border of their home network. The default we are recommending in the HNCP draft is to turn on the simple security firewall, and therefore require the rendezvous point. Can you blame industry for expecting that most end users will never feel moved to opt out of this convention?


--james woodyatt <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>