Juan Carlos, I like the idea of this document being published as an informational document, but I wonder if the document needs another rev or two first.
While it is important to have privacy considerations for discovery protocols, this document needs to go further than that to be useful to developers so that they just get it right. Section 1 talks about how the document is intended for non-IETF protocols. I think we need guidance for both IETF and non-IETF. As a port reviewer, I want to encourage developers to use common mechanisms. In fact I want to be able to refuse port requests that don't use those common mechanisms without good reason. That means that the common mechanisms need to really do the right thing. And so when the authors write: > For one, non- > standard protocols will likely not receive operational attention and > support in making them more secure such as e.g. DHCP snooping does > for DHCP because they typically are not documented. That is a very strong argument for use of IETF protocols, and they should say so (but that last phrase should be made more clear as to what it means - I had trouble parsing it.). What is needed are specific recommendations or even the strengthening of a generalized mechanism, the obvious candidate being mDNS/DNS-SD. What specific recommendations would the authors make when using 6761/6762? Also, Section 2.5 talks about configurability as if that's a good thing. Given the opportunity of the user to make a decision in this space, he or she is likely to make the wrong one. We know this from long experience. Again what is needed is far more specific recommendations that do not require user interaction. There is probably another avenue of consideration here as well. It is probably also helpful to discuss scale. Use of unique identifiers can adversely impact scale either within the server implementation or on the network itself. There's a hint of this in Section 2.1 re performance and energy consumption. Regards, Eliot On 8/26/16 12:56 AM, Juan Carlos Zuniga wrote: > Dear all, > > At the Berlin meeting we got strong support to adopt > draft-winfaa-intarea-broadcast-consider-02 as a WG work item. We are > now confirming the adoption by issuing this call on the ML. > > The document has been presented and discussed now for a few meetings > and we believe the contents are highly relevant to the group. > > Please indicate your support (or lack thereof) by replying to this > email until September 9. > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-winfaa-intarea-broadcast-consider-02 > > Regards, > > Juan Carlos & Wassim > > > _______________________________________________ > Int-area mailing list > Int-area@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
