Re: [Int-area] Review of draft-ietf-intarea-hostname-practice-04

[t.petch <[e-mail]>]

Lionel

On FQDN, would RFC1983 do?

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lionel Morand" <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Cc: <[e-mail]>;
<[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 1:28 PM
> Reviewer: Lionel Morand
> Review result: Ready
>
> I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's
> ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
> IESG.  These comments were written with the intent of improving the
> operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not
> addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG
> review.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments
> just like any other last call comments.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-intarea-hostname-practice-04
> Category: Informational
>
> Summary:   This document describes some of the protocols that leak
> hostnames e.g. DHCP, DNS, mDNS. To solve this problem, this document
> proposes to investigate the use of randomized hostnames instead of
> static hostnames to overcome the existing privacy issues with hostname
> leaking.
>
> Main feedback:
>
> This document is ready for publication. The document is simple,
> well-written, with a clear and simple argumentation. It does not
> promote a specific technical solution but advocates for further
> investigations on the use of randomized hostnames instead of static
> hostnames.
>
> Very minor comments below.
>
> ********************************************************
>
> 1)  In the section 1.  Introduction
>
>    There is a long established practice of giving names to computers.
>    In the Internet protocols, these names are referred to as
> "hostnames"
>    [RFC7719] .  Hostnames are normally used in conjunction with a
> domain
>    name suffix to build the "Fully Qualified Domain Name" (FQDN) of a
>    host.
>
> [LM] it would be great if someone could also find a reference for the
> definition of FQDN. For IETFer, it seems obvious but from the outside
> world, it is not so crystal clear. Not related to this draft but it
> could help.
>
> 2)  In the section 4.5.  DNS-Based Service Discovery
>
>    Participating hosts publish a service described by an "instance
>    name," typically chosen by the user responsible for the
> publication.
>
> [LM]
>
> s/by an "instance name," typically/ by an "instance name", typically
> (--> coma out of the quotes)
>
> 3)  Last paragraph of section 5
>
>
>    Some operating systems, including Windows, support "per network"
>    hostnames, but some other operating systems only support "global"
>    hostnames.  In that case, changing the hostname may be difficult
> if
>    the host is multi-homed, as the same name will be used on several
>    networks.  Other operating systems already use potentially
> different
>    hostnames for different purposes, which might be a good model to
>    combine both static hostnames and randomized hostnames based on
> their
>    potential use and threat to a user's privacy.  Obviously, further
>    studies are required before the idea of randomized hostnames can
> be
>    implemented.
>
> [LM] I would have put the last sentence of this paragraph in a
> following stand-alone paragraph, as it is the general conclusion of
> this section and of the document.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Int-area mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area