Re: [sacm] Proposed Updates to the Structure of the Information Model Draft

Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic@gmail.com> Wed, 26 August 2015 21:01 UTC

Return-Path: <blueroofmusic@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: sacm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sacm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 070191B330C for <sacm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 14:01:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cexiKUKPVyLk for <sacm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 14:01:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ig0-x229.google.com (mail-ig0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EEA461B330A for <sacm@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 14:01:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by igfj19 with SMTP id j19so22028648igf.1 for <sacm@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 14:01:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=LzEKLP4kkQ4AShXAfXo5LpEsdaDOy/+Mjdp/h+dLvAQ=; b=DxIuuNXO2B9tjsP/h8qjoX9z2w8mDVFl5otGx6xNxATBRE62oi+QpIirft5aZJa8tJ Uurlh03Rzf79F6rCRNPsj+EVT2ZE6Y0gSSzZnEPJQLKwIM2dEAKvD+jiNTygMOKRHB++ wx3MnQCiKHUqHb/TNIh1SvkJV5jcUp2sauZOpMqpI5BikAA0D47Yt4/8R4QrhasMUYPL Agia3zuE5t4incBpDjI5p5eMPej+IAhbYWzlFPufD5sS8ipqTlQx3h+K3pABzmRv8llX zPUVrh+9ukpVLC3o3yaKNEve3GuHVa6Au+wa3Tdm02g0I8RsGshEclmTWCPzKdSH4V4H 4D8Q==
X-Received: by 10.50.88.41 with SMTP id bd9mr14339117igb.4.1440622861359; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 14:01:01 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.169.89 with HTTP; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 14:00:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 17:00:41 -0400
Message-ID: <CAN40gSvkWEfMNhge=ii4xVQ6jgM0cQoJDkoc55Ne1Vdef8R5CQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Wolfkiel, Joseph L CIV DISA ID (US)" <joseph.l.wolfkiel.civ@mail.mil>, Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e013cb984e82049051e3d2577"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sacm/HkpRmu0gGWyv5uwqwpbtiO8eXIw>
Cc: Gunnar Engelbach <gunnar.engelbach@threatguard.com>, "Haynes, Dan" <dhaynes@mitre.org>, "sacm@ietf.org" <sacm@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sacm] Proposed Updates to the Structure of the Information Model Draft
X-BeenThere: sacm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: SACM WG mail list <sacm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sacm>, <mailto:sacm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sacm/>
List-Post: <mailto:sacm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sacm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sacm>, <mailto:sacm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 21:01:04 -0000

Hi,

I agree with Joseph that (specifically) DNS FQDN is more persistent and
meaningful
for device identity than any IPv4 or IPv6 address.  IETF reviewers
recommended that
I remove all IP address examples from my recent IPPS URI scheme (RFC 7472).

The underlying IPP/1.1 protocol (RFC 2910/2911) recommended strongly
against the
use of bare IP addresses for printer URI 15 years ago.

Cheers,
- Ira


Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG
Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG Internet Printing Protocol WG
IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB
Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic
http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc
mailto: blueroofmusic@gmail.com
Winter  579 Park Place  Saline, MI  48176  734-944-0094
Summer  PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI 49839  906-494-2434


On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 4:35 PM, Wolfkiel, Joseph L CIV DISA ID (US) <
joseph.l.wolfkiel.civ@mail.mil> wrote:

> I disagree on the FQDN since it will tend to be persistent over time,
> while IP address may change due to DHCP updates as devices leave and return
> to a given network.  The binding of an IP address to a FQDN is not
> guaranteed or expected to be persistent.  In the matching logic that we
> have implemented, we have a higher confidence in FQDN than IP addresses.
> In practice, we will not claim to have identified a device based on IP
> address alone.
>
> That said, I'm not completely confident that FQDN should be tightly bound
> to an interface in the IM.  In our mixed environments, we collect both
> NetBIOS and DNS FQDNs.  The NetBIOS FQDNs are not directly related to any
> network interface, but the DNS FQDNs are associated with interfaces that
> are connected to a given domain.  So you can't say that FQDNs always behave
> the same, with respect to network relationships.  It's a matter of what
> type of FQDN you're discussing.
>
> In the NetD data model that we're using, FQDNs are directly related to the
> device object and not associated with a given network interface.
>
> Joseph L. Wolfkiel
> SCM Engineering Lead
> DISA ID52
> Work: (301) 225-8820
> Gov Cell: (571) 814-8231
> Joseph.L.Wolfkiel.civ@mail.mil
>
>
>
>