Re: [homenet] Working Group draft adoptions

[Daniel Migault <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Please see my responses in line.

On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 6:13 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Daniel,
>
> >     - the architecture document describes how to outsource DNS zone
> outside
> > the home network to any third party by re-using only existing
> standardized
> > protocols.
> >     - the DHCP options ease the configuration of outsourcing DNS
> architecture
> > up to zero-config.
>
> As I mentioned previously, I'd be more comfortable if you could convince
> us that the proposed protocol supports separating the IHAS from the CPE,
> and explain how it works when there are multiple CPEs on a single homenet.
>
>
We have taken your comments into account.  Slide 6 of the presentation [1]
during the Toronto meeting states that we will clarify this in the next
version of the draft. It has also been requested some clarification about
the Public Authoritative Server, that the architecture is compatible with
multiple ISPs, and privacy implications of publishing names on the
internet. They will also be part of the next version.

[1] http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/90/slides/slides-90-homenet-5.pdf

I'd also be grateful if you could provide use cases, since you stated that
> you believe that my use cases are out of scope (my mail of 5 July 2014,
> Message-ID <[e-mail]>).
>
>
Unless I misunderstand the comment, our use case is: outsourcing the
DNS service of your homenet to a dedicated infrastructure.

Working code would make everyone happier, of course.
>
>
Of course, we think the protocols are now mature enough to have it, and we
should be able to have one soon.


> In the current situation, I'm opposed to making these two into WG
> documents.
>
> -- Juliusz
>



-- 
Daniel Migault
Orange Labs -- Security
[phone]