Homenet Status PagesHome Networking (Active WG)
Int Area: Suresh Krishnan, Terry Manderson | 2011-Jul-19 —Chairs:
IETF-102 homenet minutes
Session 2018-07-18 1520-1650: Centre Ville - Audio stream - homenet chatroom
IETF-102 Homenet WG meeting
July 18th, 2018, 1520-1650 (EDT)
- Blue Sheets
- Note taker - Phill Hallam Baker
- Jabber relay - Dave Thaler
Thanks to both.
1. WG Status Update
- draft-ietf-homenet-front-end-naming-delegation-07 (June 26)
- draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options-06 (June 26)
- draft-ietf-homenet-simple-naming-02 (July 2)
2. Outsourcing Home Network Authoritative Naming Service
(Daniel Migault, Jacques Latour, 20m)
drafts on front-end-naming-delegation and naming-architecture-dhc-options, and their implementation [See slides for presentation]
Draft has been on hold pending architecture work but is pretty well baked.
Ted Lemon: Useful and important work. Main question, have you tried implementing?
= Daniel: Have synced main and secondary. Have not implemented myself but Jacques Latour has.
= Jacques Latour: Have spent two years developing a secure home gateway at CIRA labs. Goal is to have DNSSEC inside and outside the house for the home gateway. Sign DNSSEC inside the house.
Ted Lemon: How was the document?
= Jacques Latour: It is a bit long and could be shortened. Don't know if we do the signing on the gateway or the outsourced signing gateway - capacity issues.
Ted Lemon: I think the document needs to be more concise.
Denis Ovsienko: Have you considered home.arpa? Did you consider possibility of desynchronization of records?
= Daniel: We assume home has a zone, not looking at using .arpa zone.
Juliusz Chroboczek: Can you hear me now? :-) What problem are you solving that is not solved by DYN-DNS?
= Mark Andrews: Juliusz is talking about Microsoft Dynamic update. If you are doing Windows AD the host does a periodic DNS update and this pushes the records to the zone uses the standard DNS protocol then reads them back forcing garbage collection. Difference is that the update is permanent.
Juliusz Chroboczek: What problem is being solved by the more complex protocol that is not solved by the simpler?
(This has subsequently been taken to list so any further discussion is likely better on that thread.)
3. Status report on security topics
(Barbara Stark, 10m)
What Babel will deliver...
- Ted Lemon: I think we should use the DTLS version and distribute public keys using HNCP
- David Schinazi : I disagree. Need to secure HMCP
- Ted Lemon: I think you are agreeing with me.
4. Simple Naming
(Ted Lemon, 50m)
Robin Wilton: Privacy question, concern that vendors will deploy Homenet in such a fashion that requires the outsourced service to be used.
= Ted: Agree
Discussion of reverse mappings...
PHB: Whether or not reverse mappings are needed as a mechanism, the network must be debugable.
= Ted: MDNS will provide response (prods Stuart)
= Stuart Cheshire: Yes
Phillip Prendaville: If we are using static mappings, discovery must work when the device is switched off.
- Stuart Cheshire: Would like WG to make a request to the list to ask if reverse queries matter in various contexts.
- Email sending (but probably not relevant for local net)
If we gather use cases, will help make informed decision. May have authorization controls to limit visibility of reverse.
- David Schinazi: Plug for DNSSD working group next morning.
The specification of friendly link names should be a WG item.
Phillip Prendaville: VLANs should also be in this. Guest salons, etc.
Robin Wilton: Not sure selecting SSIDs is as simple as suggested. After Google snarfing issue, proposal was that "nomap" suffix would avoid being mapped. That meant less flexibility in SSID. Wireless repeaters also constrain. Potential for breaking the law if someone connects to a SSID without authorization.
= Ted: We already see default behavior and this is bad.
stateful versus Stateless service discovery
PHB: The issue of DNSSEC roots that are not delegated has been addressed before, may be able to reuse work
= Ted: Various solutions need to decide if we should do it.
Schedule regular virtual interims (phone calls) to progress this draft
Suggestion is to have 4-5 calls, 2-3 weeks apart to progress this draft to the point where it's editorially complete and consistent, and at the point where we can get good implementer feedback.
Plan is for WG to wait for implementer feedback before hitting the "Publication Requested" button for the draft, so these calls do not have that as an immediate target.
Juliusz: We need a prototype to play with
= Ted Lemon: Have been working quite a bit on implementation. Discovery relay is done, need to finish discovery proxy. Needs to work how to get code out (will be OS some point).
Barbara: Would be good if people mailed chairs and say if they are interested and when their times would be.
misc questions for Ted:
Phillip Prendaville: Does the draft address the issue of what happens when IPv4 uplink goes away?
= Ted: There are issues here, draft says to deconfigure IPv4 on the local network. This makes sure that devices don't try to connect on IPv4 which will prevent them contacting external network.
5. AOB and wrap-up