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

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Mon, 21 November 2016 23:12 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Original-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B13201294B0 for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 15:12:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 y1FnO_jAdmbU for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 15:12:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm0-x22e.google.com (mail-wm0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8FD8E1294A7 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 15:12:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id a197so8058551wmd.0 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 15:12:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ezv0hjSe0v9axnzQ9lzKzjOtTrrcFgjiG6ZUPNMe+us=; b=lh8sJpVw8aohIv+qTwEjRbVYpZQaNgytU1+YKUi087AykW79CZdjQwzmH+MofA8lM5 MDNP5Bm0hWCR66uWmQ0+wJr3OXKcJcftFuPq6zLOPJYO5PCGtV7/ZCpanvIg1pumlyeX 6oj/c/gTASpfruAPccS8EEzj89klr4PH1uKFDGVaj4WFmw82Qv4ZkExmU4mbZM0p0gUK tvrJ1dQDKQcvHVJ+uwGBmpHhueMgEfD/DuOQ1UzvmL0KSFUe1wc+c7JW7Xpku9clSzQG IYPuML3LUTb7EvPT8Fjs/ynY6U+mMmUK53DwlrzEt86oAQt3RMWcEBBUpQzEAgl/udKv 3Xww==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ezv0hjSe0v9axnzQ9lzKzjOtTrrcFgjiG6ZUPNMe+us=; b=E+pzv5YJ5cc2Zq/GIOcOgo5YEAbiYrd44p14mM8pcbhleLW0XWblDOM02bAwjbowM8 GWmy/JRbpWURHCelW35MPOvhR1JzvvKKRi/+flnY19/IziFES86ZGOBa/XhJHHrZ6WhI 4XlqbpJgYE9SiK0ytUreXggjKVNx4CJRLGJmILDtXj4Ypr+st1r8V9042S/9Vp6TSrFq AG0NXCxoDfoT1p2jXeNztH1ZWtXtm5etCoC79yobuQk3BmAYA2swJ6IbtMY1qL29ObaZ v9HC78KiF0pKOTIoVOaeq6ZOlMtMfn/W4G6toEU+3b8ElVpn+Awv9eEx3pRnF3Dnu1Cd yWgg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC01QJnWC/SFBDagANOK3G4V7QeNwu8ki5nfByCUOjCieZEsxFRCN0An5XsQ2YHvwzsEIYcBr5AMxhNXfIQ==
X-Received: by 10.25.210.147 with SMTP id j141mr3808540lfg.78.1479769935896; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 15:12:15 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.25.43.210 with HTTP; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 15:11:35 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CF88ACDB-B5CD-4D42-98EF-A2C8D56EE0FC@google.com>
References: <871syc54d1.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <CAPt1N1=eXRBh6UqGGqUSK9cH_jY5MvPcE4MFZUPe2Z48LF7bkA@mail.gmail.com> <87lgwj504t.wl-jch@irif.fr> <CAPt1N1kDCMDBEpt7QYhHtPYjaMJAzw8G81=2y2f=y0ZProeCPA@mail.gmail.com> <13675.1479346312@dooku.sandelman.ca> <3B35AF68-4792-4B2A-8277-A7B49206581F@google.com> <5e3d3cb5-1b6d-29f7-d367-128817f5f43e@mtcc.com> <CF88ACDB-B5CD-4D42-98EF-A2C8D56EE0FC@google.com>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 18:11:35 -0500
Message-ID: <CAPt1N1nUnZwydDiq=qE_YxwyCm3iiMn_cE3=ZO8Y=PpTkrRydw@mail.gmail.com>
To: james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/goNwTKkooWNMWe5wcj7_O1Tyk_E>
Cc: HOMENET <homenet@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [homenet] About Ted's naming architecture presentation and document
X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Homenet WG mailing list <homenet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/homenet/>
List-Post: <mailto:homenet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 23:12:19 -0000

Part of the goal of providing a naming infrastructure for the homenet
is precisely to avoid what you are describing, James.   While it's
true that consumer IoT manufacturers do seem to be using that model
now, it's a broken model, and work is underway to obsolete it in the
open source world.   Of course, that _does not_ mean that IoT devices
will be publishing their services in the public DNS, but the dogleg
model has many problems, not the least of which is that devices that
use it and control power consumption are a significant risk for
utilities.

On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 3:46 PM, james woodyatt <jhw@google.com> wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> Yeah, you have to dog-leg through a provider that you don’t trust. Because
> the providers you don’t trust are the only things that home automation
> device manufacturers are assured by the actual existing Internet will be
> reachable from arbitrarily located remote mobile handsets.
>
> Home automation controllers and similar servers on home networks will not
> generally be reachable from arbitrarily located remote mobile handsets
> without some kind of standard solution to the problem described in section
> 3.4, Passive Listeners of RFC 6092, which is widely deployed now in most
> residential IPv6 gateways. Note also that REC-49 of that document is also
> widely ignored in most implementations, certainly enough implementations
> that it cannot serve as a dependable mechanism. It’s also important that
> REC-48 has mostly gone without further attention since, and that certainly
> adds additional complications.
>
> Look on the bright side! Consider the possibilities that open before you
> when there is a 3rd-party provider that everyone can trust!
>
> On Nov 21, 2016, at 11:46, Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:
>
> You mean i have to dogleg through a provider who i don't trust? For whom I'm
> the product? yuck.
>
> Mike
>
> On 11/21/2016 11:34 AM, james woodyatt wrote:
>
> On Nov 16, 2016, at 17:31, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
>
>
> But, do you agree that publishing your home lighting controller to the DNS
> is
> how you manage to control your lights from your phone when you are out of
> wifi distance, as you roam to 3G. (I switch to 3G when I get to the front of
> my rather modest driveway, as the AP is in the back of the basement)?
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> --james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> homenet mailing list
> homenet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
>