[homenet] security question for zeroconf stuff inside the homenet...

Hi, I've been reading the list with interest and have a question. When various devices in the home figure out which does what, and do that periodically to handle changes, there's clearly the potential that a zombied host tries to try take over stuff with undesirable consequences. My question

Re: [homenet] Mixing DNS in with routing information

Not trying to get into the argument here, but just one point: On 10/26/2012 04:59 PM, RJ Atkinson wrote: This is not true if DHCP Authentication has been deployed. My understanding is that 3118 is fictional, i.e. is never deployed, ever. As an AD, I generally push back on any draft where the

Re: [homenet] HNCP security?

Hiya, I've not really been following this discussion sufficient to comment in general, but just on this part... On 29/09/14 08:39, Markus Stenberg wrote: DTLS has rather sad multicast story too The DICE WG [1] have also been discussing potential issues with DTLS and multicast. That

Re: [homenet] HNCP security?

On 29/09/14 13:58, Ted Lemon wrote: On Sep 29, 2014, at 3:50 AM, Stephen Farrell stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie wrote: Sooner would be much better than later for that as the DICE WG are right now in the process of (re-)considering whether they can in fact meet their chartered goals on this topic

Re: [homenet] [Anima] Ted Lemon's Block on charter-ietf-anima-00-09: (with BLOCK)

On 02/10/14 13:49, Michael Behringer (mbehring) wrote: My personal goal is that what we do in ANIMA is fully compatible with and ideally used in homenet. It would feel wrong to me to have an infrastructure that doesn't work in a homenet. The security bootstrap is a good example of what we

Re: [homenet] [Anima] Ted Lemon's Block on charter-ietf-anima-00-09: (with BLOCK)

Hiya, On 05/10/14 22:55, Brian E Carpenter wrote: So, in my opinion, model #1 (a shared secret known to every device) is pretty weak. It might be acceptable for a small home network with a very careful human owner, but not beyond that limit. This is exactly the kind of shared secret that

Re: [homenet] Queries on draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-02

On 26/11/14 07:39, Markus Stenberg wrote: public-key TLV, but currently not really implemented anywhere and going to be phased out probably in favor of leaving the asymmetric crypto details out of the protocol itself oooh - there's a way to get my attention:-) Is that saying that HNCP used

Re: [homenet] Security considerations for the Babel routing protocol

On 08/04/15 02:56, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: Dear Stephen, Following your request of 5 April 2015, Well, I didn't quite request exactly that, but fair play. It's good to see the analysis begun, though I utterly disagree with your main so-called conclusion. I'll send a more detailed

Re: [homenet] Selecting a routing protocol for HOMENET

On 05/04/15 15:37, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: a plan of the form produce base spec RCC and only then start to think about security will get pushback from me. Why? (If the answer is read BCP 61, I'll do that, but not right now.) Partly that and partly the horrible experience with years of

Re: [homenet] Selecting a routing protocol for HOMENET

Hiya, Just on one topic... On 05/04/15 14:56, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: I'd like the charter to clearly state that security considerations are outside the scope of the base spec. FWIW, and wearing my security AD hat, I can guarantee that would generate pushback. We have BCPs that say we

Re: [homenet] Selecting a routing protocol for HOMENET

On 05/04/15 15:24, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: I'd like the charter to clearly state that security considerations are outside the scope of the base spec. PS: The above does not mean that I think it's a problem if a WG want to produce a base spec and some other RFC that has the security

[homenet] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-homenet-prefix-assignment-07: (with COMMENT)

Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-homenet-prefix-assignment-07: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however

[homenet] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-homenet-dncp-09: (with COMMENT)

Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-homenet-dncp-09: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer

Re: [homenet] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-homenet-dncp-09: (with COMMENT)

Hiya, On 17/09/15 16:00, Steven Barth wrote: > Hello Stephen, > > thanks for your review. > Please find some comments below. > > > Cheers, > > Steven > > >> -- >> COMMENT: >>

Re: [homenet] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-10: (with COMMENT)

I had a peek at the diff and it's all good from my POV. Isn't it amazing how you can look at a document for ages and ages and not just see stuff like the hkdf thing? I do it all the time;-( S. On 04/12/15 21:53, Markus Stenberg wrote: >> On 4.12.2015, at 18.51, Stephen Farrell <ste

Re: [homenet] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On 26/11/15 16:49, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: >> Hmm. I've also setup many small PKIs and don't agree. I do think someone >> could easily make all that quite usable within the home. > > Have you ever walked a non-specialist through the process? I have not. But as others said, the key idea would

Re: [homenet] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On 20/11/15 15:35, Markus Stenberg wrote: > > [1] > https://github.com/fingon/ietf-drafts/commit/f8275e165802a9c310f0bbde98e42087ecc891b1 Great, that's fine to sort my discuss point. I'll clear whenever that's posted Thanks, S. ___ homenet mailing

[homenet] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-09: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https

Re: [homenet] write up of time without clocks

On 31/10/16 13:36, Michael Richardson wrote: > > Hi, I know that we talked a lot (especially Dave Taht) about how CPE devices > without RTCs could verify certificates and DNSSEC when they don't know the > time, and they won't know the time until they securely find an NTP server. > > But, we

Re: [homenet] Ted's security talk at IETF99: DNCP Security

On 31/07/17 19:00, Ted Lemon wrote: > I don't know how to make that work without a fake domain tree. > Can't we just use ACME+letsencrypt.org ? I think the protocols would work fine, but I'm not sure there's a current challenge type that'd work here, for LE or any

Re: [homenet] Please review security considerations of draft-homenet-babel-profile

Hiya, I suggest asking the chairs to hit the "request directorate" review (iirc only they can see that button?) for an early secdir review. For myself, I've not read the draft yet (I will over the next few weeks) but have two questions while I'm here: 1) The first sentence seems to not say

[homenet] Fwd: IETF 100 Preliminary Agenda

FYI, homenet is currently scheduled to meet Monday afternoon. That can still change of course. S Forwarded Message Subject: IETF 100 Preliminary Agenda Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 15:00:55 -0700 From: IETF Agenda Reply-To: IETF Agenda To:

Re: [homenet] Incoming chairs for HOMENET

Hi all, On 23/07/17 07:42, Terry Manderson wrote: > Dear WG, > > I am pleased to announce that the new chairs for HOMENET will be > Barbara Stark and Stephen Farrell. > > Ray has graciously offered to assist in a smooth chair transition by > staying on until IETF100 (thank

[homenet] early reminder...

Hiya, Just an early heads-up about the draft submission cutoff for IETF-100 - that's not for a month yet [1] but hey - time flies if you let it:-) Also, if folks know already that you'd like some agenda time for a topic that's not already a WG item, now would be a fine time to start a thread on

[homenet] comments on babel-profile-03

Hiya, I re-read babel-profile-03 and have a few comments (below) offered as a WG participant (i.e. chair hat off) as part of WGLC. If any of these were discussed already, then just pointing me at the archive is a fine answer. (And apologies for not having been active in the WG earlier if there

[homenet] Agenda & Slides for tomorrow please...

Hiya, We're meeting tomorrow @ 1550 local, 0750 UTC. Agenda is at [1], chair slides at [2]. Any comments (agenda-bash, stuff I forgot) welcome, just reply to this on or off list as appropriate. If you have a presentation slot (Jordi, Ted, cc'd) then please send any slides you want to use to

[homenet] breakfast meeting tomorrow (wed) on security

Hiya, We mentioned this in the session yesterday and someone suggested it'd be good to send to the list so... A bunch of folks who're at the IETF meeting and interested in doing work on homenet security plan to meet for breakfast at 8am at the IETF registration desk. If you'd like to help then

Re: [homenet] comments on babel-profile-03

Hiya, On 19/11/17 16:05, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: >> I re-read babel-profile-03 and have a few comments (below) offered >> as a WG participant (i.e. chair hat off) as part of WGLC. > > Thanks, this is appreciated. > >> - Req5: Is "MUST be... of a similar magnitude..." clear enough? > > Yes.

Re: [homenet] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-homenet-babel-profile-06: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On 09/05/18 23:19, STARK, BARBARA H wrote: > I do believe that, given the hyper-awareness of the 2015 discussion, > the WG knew what it was agreeing to (or not objecting to). I believe > the WG is knowingly saying it wants to move on. FWIW, I concur. S. 0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc Description:

[homenet] charter item on perimeter security

Hiya, Our charter has the following milestone: Nov 2017 - First WG draft on perimeter security Is anyone here working on or interested in that topic? If so, please ping me/chairs offlist. If people are interested in doing that work, I'd like to try setup a chat about that next week. If

Re: [homenet] security work items - what do we want to do?

Hiya, On 24/01/18 19:21, Michael Richardson wrote: > > Stephen Farrell <stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie> wrote: > > On 24/01/18 15:36, Ted Lemon wrote: > >> Yes, enrollment is the process by which trust is established. Google > >> home has an exam

Re: [homenet] security work items - what do we want to do?

Hiya, On 24/01/18 13:32, Michael Richardson wrote: > > Stephen Farrell <stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie> wrote: > > On 24/01/18 02:48, Michael Richardson wrote: > >> > >> Stephen Farrell <stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie> wrote: > - Does this

Re: [homenet] security work items - what do we want to do?

o that, just ping Barbara and I and we can throw that into pile for agenda construction. Cheers, S. > >> On Jan 24, 2018, at 8:51 AM, Stephen Farrell >> <stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie> wrote: >> >> >> Hiya, >> >> On 24/01/18 13:32, Michael Richardson w

[homenet] ietf 101 provisional agenda is out...

Hiya, The preliminary agenda has been published. [1] That has us meeting Friday morning, at the same time as: ice, mmusic, iccrg, detnet, roll, i2nst, suit and dtn. If that causes a significant issue for anyone who'd be needed for the homenet session, please let Barbara and I know (offlist)

Re: [homenet] security work items - what do we want to do?

Hi All, Barbara and I chatted about the discussion in this thread, and here's our summary, please correct us if we've gotten stuff wrong. - On item 1, work on the security considerations of draft-ietf-homenet-simple-naming will proceed as usual. - On item 2, (the perimeter security draft

Re: [homenet] regular wg virtual interims - doodle poll for which day (due Friday)

going and span clocks going back an hour, we will move to 1600 UTC to keep the local time the same. I'll get the secretariat stuff setup and we should see some more official announcements. Barbara and I will send an agenda for call#1 in a week or so. Cheers, S. On 30/07/18 15:35, Stephen Farrell

[homenet] regular wg virtual interims - doodle poll for which day (due Friday)

Hiya, As previously discussed, [1] we'd like to schedule four or five bi-weekly virtual interims to progress the simple naming document. Feedback so far seems to indicate that 1500 UTC is an ok time, (that's 1600 here in Dublin, 1100 in EDT and 0800 US west coast), and maybe Tue, Wed or Thu are

[homenet] Fwd: (Forward to others) Webex meeting invitation: homenet wg interim

://ietf.webex.com/ietf/j.php?MTID=m2f68121c49aaf07cc3bb11571ca55c1c Jabber room: xmpp:home...@jabber.ietf.org?join etherpad: TBD [ Chairs - don't forget to hit "record" button:-) ] Attendees: == Chairs: - Barbara Stark - Stephen Farrell Present: - TBD Minute taker: - cha

Re: [homenet] Home Networking (homenet) WG Virtual Meeting: 2018-09-04

Hiya, On 20/08/18 17:58, Ted Lemon wrote: > I believe that this meeting was originally scheduled for 1500 UTC, which > would be 1600 Dublin time, not 1100 Dublin time. A time change the day > before the meeting is (a) not enough notice and (b) I suspect not what was > intended. :) Yep, all

Re: [homenet] Minutes of today's interim

On 22/08/18 00:05, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > On 2018-08-22 09:05, Stephen Farrell wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> I posted minutes at [1]. Comments welcome! > > Thanks for the detailed notes. > > The github repo URL is wrong. Try > https://github

[homenet] Minutes of today's interim

Hi all, I posted minutes at [1]. Comments welcome! Next session is same time (1500 UTC) on Sep 4th. Cheers, S. [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2018-homenet-01/materials/minutes-interim-2018-homenet-01-201808211600 0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc Description: application/pgp-keys

[homenet] virtual interims to progress simple naming draft

Hiya, As mentioned in Montreal, we're thinking of organising a set of virtual interims to try help progress this [1] draft. The goal is to try more quickly move it along to the point where (we think) it's editorially complete, at which point it ought be easier for implementers to use, and to

Re: [homenet] draft-ietf-homenet-front-end-naming-delegation vs. DynDNS

(with no hats...) On 19/07/18 10:42, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: >> Also, think of the privacy implications if all of the services on the >> homenet had to be discovered from a shared zone like dyndns.org. > Quite the opposite. In the trivial update protocol, the update is > end-to-end,

Re: [homenet] security work items - what do we want to do?

Hiya, On 24/01/18 02:48, Michael Richardson wrote: > > Stephen Farrell <stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie> wrote: > > - Does this sound roughly right or off the wall? > > It sounds right. > I think that bootstrap of security should become an recharter item in the

[homenet] security work items - what do we want to do?

Hi homenet folks, Barbara and I were chatting about the security work that may need to be done in the homenet wg in the coming months and here are our thoughts on that. We'd like to get folks' reactions to those: - Does this sound roughly right or off the wall? - If the former, do we think it's

Re: [homenet] security work items - what do we want to do?

I'm on about this is that if we use terms like "trust" and "enrollment" without qualification, then we may end up meaning quite different things, which might then make it harder to try find some solutions to what are in any case all hard problems. Cheers, S. > >> On J

Re: [homenet] Reminder: homenet call

Hi all, And draft minutes are now at [1]. Ted is hoping to get a new simple-naming I-D out today before the cutoff, so you may be as well to wait a bit and read that vs. the text referenced in those minutes. Cheers, S. [1]

Re: [homenet] Reminder: homenet call

12:01 PM Stephen Farrell > wrote: > >> >> Hi all, >> >> And draft minutes are now at [1]. >> >> Ted is hoping to get a new simple-naming I-D out today >> before the cutoff, so you may be as well to wait a bit >> and read that vs. the text referen

[homenet] homenet: what now? ... next?

Dear WG, At IETF-103 Ted lead a good discussion of where we're at and where we and others in the homenet space may be heading. One key aspect of that discussion is that we might (or might not) be working on specs that have been overtaken by events e.g. in the sense that perhaps there are now

Re: [homenet] homenet: what now? ... next?

Hi all, We'd really appreciate more feedback on this topic, so could you please take a few minutes to give us some more guidance on where you want to see the work go from here... Thanks, S. On 01/03/2019 21:21, Stephen Farrell wrote: > > Dear WG, > > At IETF-103 Ted lead a goo

Re: [homenet] homenet: what now? ... next?

Hiya, Given the level of list inactivity, it's actually really helpful that you took the time to re-tx those points! One clarifying question below... On 08/03/2019 12:48, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: > Hi Stephen, > > Sorry if I'm repeating myself -- I've already expressed the opinions > below,

Re: [homenet] homenet: what now? ... next?

Thanks Michael, More such input is very welcome! As chairs we'll try ask again in a bit, but it'll be the same questions basically so answering now is just as good:-) On 23/04/2019 22:40, Michael Richardson wrote: > I think that perhaps the naming work could move to DNSSD WG if closing down >

Re: [homenet] IPv6 & firewall config in a home net

On 05/09/2019 14:45, Ray Hunter (v6ops) wrote: > That will likely mean regular renumbering of IA PD by ISP's as the norm > rather than the exception. I get a bit of both. If there's a power outage or some other kinds of service outage I don't get, then I get renumbered when some bit of ISP kit

Re: [homenet] DoH??

Hiya, On 18/09/2019 23:07, Michael Thomas wrote: > > So I'm a little unclear about the specifics of Firefox using DNS over > HTTP, but wouldn't this affect homenet naming, or any split horizon kind > of naming? FWIW, I just tested with FF nightly in my home n/w for a name that is locally

Re: [homenet] DoH??

On 18/09/2019 23:51, Ted Lemon wrote: > Let’s not discuss this here. This is a topic for add. Yes. The ADD list was setup for that discussion (and exploded). A review of it's archive [1] might be eye opening, if tedious. Cheers, S. [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/add/ > >> On

[homenet] Fwd: IETF 107 Vancouver In-Person Meeting Cancelled

Hi all, Many of you will have seen this but we'll not be meeting f2f in Vancouver this time. Hopefully things will have improved by the timeframe of IETF108. In the meantime, we'd like to know if WG participants would like to hold a virtual interim for homenet. If you think that would be

Re: [homenet] [Captive-portals] [Int-area] [EXTERNAL] Re: Evaluate impact of MAC address randomization to IP applications

Hiya, On 29/09/2020 19:41, Michael Richardson wrote: > It will be good if we can get a document from the MAC randomization > proponents (if there is such a group), to explain the thread profile. > I don't think it includes active compromised hosts. That is a problem yes. I no longer think

Re: [homenet] [Captive-portals] [Int-area] [EXTERNAL] Re: Evaluate impact of MAC address randomization to IP applications

Hiya, On 29/09/2020 20:56, Michael Richardson wrote: > > Stephen Farrell wrote: > > > On 29/09/2020 19:41, Michael Richardson wrote: > >> It will be good if we can get a document from the MAC randomization > >> proponents (if there is such a grou

Re: [homenet] [Int-area] Evaluate impact of MAC address randomization to IP applications

unwind the privacy benefits, so I think a good way to avoid that mis-perception is to also present the reasons for (in this case, MAC address randomisation) as fully as the description of the challenges caused. Cheers, S. > > Thanks, Yiu > > > On 9/22/20, 4:51 PM, &

Re: [homenet] [Int-area] Evaluate impact of MAC address randomization to IP applications

That agenda and draft seem to make the seemingly common enough mistake of only focusing on what a new privacy or security mechanism breaks and glossing over the good reasons why people introduce these mechanisms. I hope the BoF proponents fix that because otherwise they may end up giving the

Re: [homenet] [Int-area] Evaluate impact of MAC address randomization to IP applications

Hiya, On 23/09/2020 01:13, Brian Dickson wrote: > IMNSHO, MACs should be relegated to the role reflected in their name: Media > Access Control, basically a disambiguator, not an identity. With s/disambiguator/local disambiguator/ I would entirely agree I think. > The work being done by the

Re: [homenet] [Captive-portals] [Int-area] [EXTERNAL] Re: Evaluate impact of MAC address randomization to IP applications

Hiya, I don't agree with that conclusion... On 30/09/2020 18:16, Michael Richardson wrote: > My take home from your work is that MAC address randomization is a useless > waste of time. It causes significant costs to the network operator(s) without > actually providing any benefit to the mobile

Re: [homenet] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8375 (6378)

<mailto:mel...@fugue.com> *Sent: *02 January 2021 15:02 *To: *Stephen Farrell <mailto:stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie> *Cc: *pierre.pfis...@darou.fr <mailto:pierre.pfis...@darou.fr>; Erik Kline <mailto:ek.i...@gmail.com>; Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <mailto:evyn...@cisco.com>

Re: [homenet] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8375 (6378)

Any opinions on this from authors/list? My take would be that this can be rejected as inclusion of full stops within quotes is stylistically correct and that there's no technical issue with including the root's dot in a DNS name. But maybe some other convention has been followed for DNS RFCs in

Re: [homenet] naming drafts

Hi Michael, On 05/06/2021 19:46, Michael Richardson wrote: Well, I'd be happy to discuss with this them again, but they'd have to actually tell us what "DDNS" really is for them. Just to clarify: I don't think/claim DDNS is "better" than the proposal here, rather I don't find the arguments

Re: [homenet] naming drafts

Hiya, On 08/06/2021 10:29, Ray Hunter (v6ops) wrote: Just trying to understand this hurdle/ line of reasoning. So in addition to achieving "rough consensus", the IETF standardization process must also produce drafts that are very likely to gain traction to displace non-IETF

Re: [homenet] naming drafts

to chat with our AD and see if he's either willing to AD-sponsor it, or to ask another WG to adopt, or try find a dispatch-like process to see if enough interest/review can be found that way. Cheers, S. Yours, Daniel On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 6:06 AM Stephen Farrell wrote: Hiya, On 08/06/20

Re: [homenet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-homenet-front-end-naming-delegation-15.txt

Hiya, I had a read of this one. My comments (as an individual, not as chair) below. I'll chat with Barbara to see if we have a common position on how to handle next steps but am happy to chat about stuff below whenever. Cheers, S. review of draft-ietf-homenet-front-end-naming-delegation-15

Re: [homenet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-homenet-front-end-naming-delegation-15.txt

/ietf-homenet-hna/commit/cc07384cf6a93794f984d3393100e700a306317c#diff-1fb3d4609e8b03755bf2390df10a5ccd792f989796a0b922a273cd63418fcaa5 On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 5:01 PM Stephen Farrell wrote: Hiya, I had a read of this one. My comments (as an individual, not as chair) below. I'll chat

Re: [homenet] Looking for a Homenet co-chair

Hiya, On 31/08/2021 15:53, Daniel Migault wrote: I also support that homenet work being made in homenet. It is unclear to me why we are looking at an alternate way to proceed. From my POV, mostly because, as co-chair, it's very hard to be confident that we have sufficient participation to

Re: [homenet] Looking for a Homenet co-chair

Hiya, On 24/08/2021 08:59, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote: Dear all, As you are probably aware, Barbara Stark is retiring from her WG chair position after IETF-112 I'd also like to thank Barbara for all her fine work for this WG, and everything else in IETF-land too! and I now have ‘mission

Re: [homenet] Request to join mailing list of IETF homenet WG

Hiya, On 15/10/2021 07:36, Prabhu, Shailesh (Nokia - IN/Bangalore) wrote: Respected Chairs, I am working as a Senior Technical Specialist at Nokia. As a beginner, I am looking forward to contributing to IETF. Home Networking (homenet) WG aligns with my interest, and I would like to join the

Re: [homenet] Homenet Mission accomplished ?

Hiya, On 01/02/2023 15:00, Ted Lemon wrote: Congratulations on getting this done! Indeed! Well done to the authors for sticking with it. (And to Eric for pushing it over the line too!) And thanks all for the WG fun! I agree that it's closing time now. Cheers, Stephen.

Re: [homenet] Privacy risks with smart home local device communication

Hi Aniketh, Thanks for forwarding the paper - interesting work! The homenet working group was closed some time back. I think the currently open IETF venues that might be relevant for this work would be madinas (considering mac address randomisation), snac (working on a subset of home n/w