Re: [mdnsext] Discussion of BoF during Berlin IETF

Kerry Lynn <kerlyn@ieee.org> Mon, 10 June 2013 22:28 UTC

Return-Path: <kerlyn2001@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mdnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mdnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2A9D21F8443 for <mdnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Jun 2013 15:28:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.144
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.144 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.833, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, SARE_HTML_USL_OBFU=1.666]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ODE8-3LH5-Pu for <mdnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Jun 2013 15:28:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-x233.google.com (mail-ob0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E17521F842A for <mdnsext@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Jun 2013 15:28:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ob0-f179.google.com with SMTP id xk17so10856539obc.10 for <mdnsext@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Jun 2013 15:28:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=Y0/ntBfGUYsTjOGXEral1qPoI9V1yp97H8/9KOJqrpw=; b=eiS1dhiq5PeorrtyvN+NHdD0MwGKZhMZzBtrt7kle1sCuZZ6NWfn/lNTRRyUSBLuoR ykKO2NGqfveTZYHexXyo+zrPfP8UPB1ZPbWTu1RebIcAnH+Wwvz7xCsWgQieaGdWD1ji TqNc6zULxju2QVLD74YpzC8AEC9MWUQsKJgf3j3udlI+4WH9h9fOFNTtctpFNPN6hJJL K4Jd8iNlRcPLA3Mp5VBN3fUNNNu+4T5eRO9y8vXNE/SWcM8sUDcDiIHgrijF6QB00ZPJ nPtx3irRP8qhhY+DUVBI7WixBNwpVMkZ4EfVX9Hdz6h1hqtQL9wNrTtGkeVYTrDgBy6Y JFhw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.28.98 with SMTP id a2mr2952785obh.36.1370903326107; Mon, 10 Jun 2013 15:28:46 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: kerlyn2001@gmail.com
Received: by 10.60.148.197 with HTTP; Mon, 10 Jun 2013 15:28:45 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <51B63B07.5070802@umn.edu>
References: <14CE323C-0BCC-4B7F-976C-10070E156046@gmail.com> <783F7CF8-7FDB-4F93-82C2-4291E329F844@gmail.com> <19956.1370353531@sandelman.ca> <E36F274013087B4EA05E08EB5037503901820D@DEFTHW99EK5MSX.ww902.siemens.net> <22635.1370439768@sandelman.ca> <51B63B07.5070802@umn.edu>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 18:28:45 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: cChFk_NWDU91jYh0fBNwDT1-wR0
Message-ID: <CABOxzu2bec8NXrBk8ejB0c1m1sdmOhx4MwOfEiw=xaccwqb_xg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Kerry Lynn <kerlyn@ieee.org>
To: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0158adfec67b8604ded44d77
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, "Albrecht, Harald" <harald.albrecht@siemens.com>, "mdnsext@ietf.org" <mdnsext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mdnsext] Discussion of BoF during Berlin IETF
X-BeenThere: mdnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of extensions to Bonjour \(mDNS and DNS-SD\) for routed networks." <mdnsext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mdnsext>, <mailto:mdnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mdnsext>
List-Post: <mailto:mdnsext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mdnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mdnsext>, <mailto:mdnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 22:28:53 -0000

On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 4:45 PM, David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> wrote:

> On 6/5/13 08:42 , Michael Richardson wrote:
>
>  But, that doesn't prevent or clearly signal, that mDNS may be
>> *unwelcome* on a particular network.   Enterprise folks might want to do
>> that. I'm not claiming that they will, or should, succeed, btw.  I'm
>> pointing out that we don't know what they want, because they don't tend
>> to participate.
>>
>
> While I wouldn't recommend general use of such a mode of operation I do
> see some special situations where I think it could be necessary, even on my
> own network, especially in networks or subnets with high security
> requirements.
>
> More fundamentally, I would prefer to see a graceful mechanism to achieve
> this policy, rather than requiring traffic filtering or another blunt force
> mechanism to achieve such a policy.  If someone feels they need such a
> policy they will find a way.  I believe it is far better for the protocol
> to give them a way to achieve their policy goals then to force them to use
> other possibly more drastic mechanisms to achieve their policy goal.
>
> The policy goal being "black hole all FF02::FB traffic"?

-K-

>
> --
> ==============================**==================
> David Farmer               Email: farmer@umn.edu
> Office of Information Technology
> University of Minnesota
> 2218 University Ave SE     Phone: 1-612-626-0815
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952
> ==============================**==================
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> mdnsext mailing list
> mdnsext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/mdnsext<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mdnsext>
>