Re: [homenet] New version draft-mglt-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options-02.txt

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

On Jul 15, 2014, at 4:27 PM, Michael Thomas <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Good. If that can be done at all, is there a reason that it cannot have those properties?
> That is if, say, my Google Nest spams my local homenet advertising the Google Eggs-in-one-basket
> DNS service, it should use the same set of protocols as a local ISP advertising over DHCP to
> actually hook everything up between my CPE and their service.

We can safely assume that any device that is monetized through the cloud will do everything in its power to prevent us from accessing it, so that's really not the interesting test case.   The interesting test case is whether a Nest-like device that isn't operated through the manufacturer's captive portal will use this set of standard protocols.   (I don't know what the policies behind Nest are specifically, but the phenomenon I'm talking about is more the rule than the exception in citizen-grade IoT devices at the moment).

> Can we make this a *requirement*? If not, why not?

We can't force anybody to do anything, that's why not.   But we can document a mechanism for doing it, and if implementation becomes widespread in home gateways, it's not unreasonable to think that devices that _don't_ depend on a captive portal for monetization will use these protocols rather than reinventing the wheel.   But bear in mind that this is a fairly big "if."