Subject: [Last-Call] Iotdir last call review of draft-ietf-dnssd-prireq-04

From: Samita Chakrabarti via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 09:31:59 -0800

Reviewer: Samita Chakrabarti
Review result: Ready with Nits

I have reviewed draft-ietf-dnssd-prireq-04.

The document is informative and clear with a few editorial nits on section 4.1
through 4.3.

I have reviewed from the IoT devices perspective  and most likely for the
consumer devices that might be present in the public network and are using
shared network technologies (wireless or wired). The threat model are
applicable to them. Section 3.1 describes implications for wearable and  server
related privacy issue.  Perhaps a small paragraph might be added in this
section or in the introduction calling out possible privacy and security
threats on personal IoT devices in the public places ( that might act as a
dns-sd client).

At the same time, considering limited processing capabilities, battery saving
concern considerations, privacy related extra processing of messages from the
dns-sd server should not be mandated for the IoT devices. Depending on the
device capabilities, the feature can be configurable and the user can turn
on/off  at their need; additionally some iot devices may not care about the
privacy at all.

So, a few additional lines on IoT implications for the threat model and yet
flexibility of implementation of the dns-sd IOT client may be mentioned in the
document to clarify the IoT devices in the shared wireless/wired medium.

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 09:47:17 -0800

100% agree with your first point.

Regarding your second point, one of the classic use cases for dns-sd privacy is a pacemaker.  This is a battery-operated device, but the user should not have to broadcast the fact that they have a pacemaker installed whenever they are walking around out in the world.

So if you think that the requirements really do not address the power consumption issue, that is something that should be added to the document as a requirement, rather than saying that in such cases privacy can be optional.

> On Feb 13, 2020, at 9:31 AM, Samita Chakrabarti via Datatracker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dnssd mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnssd

---

From: Christian Huitema <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 10:36:27 -0800

Thanks for the review, Samita. We will try to add some precisions about
IoT devices in the next version of the draft.

---

From: Christian Huitema <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 10:45:09 -0800

> So if you think that the requirements really do not address the power consumption issue, that is something that should be added to the document as a requirement, rather than saying that in such cas…

We tried to address that in the section 3.4, Operational Considerations.
Samita, do you think we should have some specific text there? I am
always worried about forcing a trade-off between privacy and power
consumption. There may be devices such as sensors in buildings for which
the privacy considerations are minimum, but there are clear requirements
for any "wearable" device. Ted's example of a pacemaker is an obvious
one, but even something benign as "smart jewelry" would have obvious
implications.

-- Christian Huitema

---

From: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 15:56:28 +0000

[Sorry for belated reply, I was on vacations]

Thank you Samita for your review and thank you Christian and Ted for your replies

-éric

On 13/02/2020, 19:37, "last-call on behalf of Christian Huitema" <[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:

    
    -- 
    last-call mailing list
    [email-masked]
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call