It's good to see some traction in service discovery and naming.
We also have a fifth area, security. The text as it stands says a few
things that apply to this area, e.g.
a) An assumption of "Simple Security" with default deny on the CER.
This implies PCP or uPnP to support punching holes. The text
also talks about addressability vs reachability.
b) Mention of appropriate mechanisms for users to associate
devices, and that devices may need keys configured, e.g. WPA2.
So we should be aiming for these tasks to be as simple as possible.
c) The possibility to say that a ULA source indicates a connection
within the home. Suggested by Chris Palmer in Quebec, but not
discussed since.
d) Mention of "Advanced Security", which talks about the ability to
install 3rd party policies. Some have suggested removing this
from the initial homenet spec.
e) Discussion of (determination of) network borders; these are
points at which policies may apply. In the "self-configuring"
section we talk more on that task. Homenets may have internal
policy borders, e.g. between private and guest areas.
There's certainly scope to put down more in the way of goals; any
comments in this area are welcome.
Tim
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
