[Iot-directorate] Iotdir last call review of draft-ietf-dnssd-prireq-04
Samita Chakrabarti via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 13 February 2020 17:31 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: iot-directorate@ietf.org
Delivered-To: iot-directorate@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CB54120168; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 09:31:59 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Samita Chakrabarti via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: iot-directorate@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-dnssd-prireq.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, dnssd@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.117.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Samita Chakrabarti <samitac.ietf@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <158161511905.20519.9851954062722453601@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 09:31:59 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iot-directorate/jp6bMyLthqvAcNyt5LE1f19Mt2g>
Subject: [Iot-directorate] Iotdir last call review of draft-ietf-dnssd-prireq-04
X-BeenThere: iot-directorate@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Mailing list for the IoT Directorate Members <iot-directorate.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/iot-directorate>, <mailto:iot-directorate-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/iot-directorate/>
List-Post: <mailto:iot-directorate@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:iot-directorate-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iot-directorate>, <mailto:iot-directorate-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 17:31:59 -0000
Reviewer: Samita Chakrabarti Review result: Ready with Nits I have reviewed draft-ietf-dnssd-prireq-04. The document is informative and clear with a few editorial nits on section 4.1 through 4.3. I have reviewed from the IoT devices perspective and most likely for the consumer devices that might be present in the public network and are using shared network technologies (wireless or wired). The threat model are applicable to them. Section 3.1 describes implications for wearable and server related privacy issue. Perhaps a small paragraph might be added in this section or in the introduction calling out possible privacy and security threats on personal IoT devices in the public places ( that might act as a dns-sd client). At the same time, considering limited processing capabilities, battery saving concern considerations, privacy related extra processing of messages from the dns-sd server should not be mandated for the IoT devices. Depending on the device capabilities, the feature can be configurable and the user can turn on/off at their need; additionally some iot devices may not care about the privacy at all. So, a few additional lines on IoT implications for the threat model and yet flexibility of implementation of the dns-sd IOT client may be mentioned in the document to clarify the IoT devices in the shared wireless/wired medium.
- [Iot-directorate] Iotdir last call review of draf… Samita Chakrabarti via Datatracker
- Re: [Iot-directorate] [Last-Call] Iotdir last cal… Christian Huitema
- Re: [Iot-directorate] [Last-Call] Iotdir last cal… Eric Vyncke (evyncke)