From nobody Fri Apr 1 00:32:45 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8212112D183 for ; Fri, 1 Apr 2016 00:32:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.821 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.821 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 27WrN1H3HlEo for ; Fri, 1 Apr 2016 00:32:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from johanna3.inet.fi (mta-out1.inet.fi [62.71.2.199]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A8CD12D0E6 for ; Fri, 1 Apr 2016 00:32:41 -0700 (PDT) RazorGate-KAS: Status: not_detected RazorGate-KAS: Rate: 0 RazorGate-KAS: Envelope from: RazorGate-KAS: Version: 5.5.3 RazorGate-KAS: LuaCore: 80 2014-11-10_18-01-23 260f8afb9361da3c7edfd3a8e3a4ca908191ad29 RazorGate-KAS: Lua profiles 69136 [Nov 12 2014] RazorGate-KAS: Method: none Received: from poro.lan (80.220.86.47) by johanna3.inet.fi (9.0.002.03-2-gbe5d057) (authenticated as stenma-47) id 56F3C8C900981B9D; Fri, 1 Apr 2016 10:32:39 +0300 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) From: Markus Stenberg In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 10:32:38 +0300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <20160323164509.2510.24152.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> To: Ted Lemon X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) Archived-At: Cc: homenet@ietf.org Subject: Re: [homenet] I-D ACTION:draft-lemon-homenet-naming-architecture-00.txt X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Homenet WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2016 07:32:44 -0000 I have partially browsed through the draft. For the record, I am not big = fan of the hybrid solution either as I consider the whole mdns rather = =E2=80=98loud=E2=80=99 on the link, and hybrid just makes the solution = worse by causing the spam to occur across multiple links. It is working = solution _given current stuff_ though, which I am not sure can be = ignored[1]. So, to comments about some parts of the draft: Section 2.1: It looks interesting. I like having separate naming and = connectivity provider, if we can pry the reverse delegation off the = connection providers=E2=80=99 dead hands at any rate. Section 2.2: I am not sure I like =E2=80=98flat=E2=80=99 namespace, as = it prevents e.g. DNS-SD records from being associated with the = particular namespace (or is this =E2=80=98flat=E2=80=99 in some logical = sense and not really talking about label sequences?). Section 2.3: I think public should be separate DNS-SD (+DNS-update) zone = with manual opt-in, and not created out of local entries.=20 Section 2.4.2: I think adding service registration to DHCP would be a = mistake. (Wrong level in typical implementation stack, as it is not = really tied to network configuration but instead property of = applications; one _could_ do it but I find it non-desirable.) Section 2.4.3: I would like some sort of =E2=80=98claim ownership of = record X, allow updating it only if you are owner=E2=80=99 schemed = DNS-Update to be the main method. It would also address conflict = resolution _given_ single server (hard to do in distributed fashion = though; the rest of draft seems to argue for loosely synchronized state = while I would assert single master + read-only slaves would work better = for this model as the ownership claim would be atomic / race-free) Section 2.5: Not fan of using just IP address for authentication, = instead, see above. Section 3.6: TOFU is usually better than nothing at least.. Section 4.6: We got some (user) feedback that ULA should be preferred = over GUA as GUA can go away, disrupting in-home stuff unneccessarily. = (Obviously not mosh user.) The draft seems like good start at least.=20 Disclaimer: I didn=E2=80=99t quite read all of it as I am mostly just = browsing through everything going on at the moment (and wondering if I = should react to the dnssd WGLCs that already expired while I was on = vacation, grumble.) Cheers, -Markus [1] The classic argument =E2=80=98for=E2=80=99 hybrid are e.g. historic = printers. However, I am pretty sure e.g. first-hop router could = proxy-DNSSD-register them to DNS and mDNS could be just let rot in = practise. (Later addition: Oh. Section 2.4.1 covers this to some degree = already.) From nobody Fri Apr 1 06:10:46 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2E4612D5DD for ; Fri, 1 Apr 2016 06:10:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TCN6WDSUo6yd for ; Fri, 1 Apr 2016 06:10:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf0-x22a.google.com (mail-lf0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A1B7C12D5D6 for ; Fri, 1 Apr 2016 06:10:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id p188so54205728lfd.0 for ; Fri, 01 Apr 2016 06:10:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=0YF3dCV9Xu3H9nyw9VOvXZnm7earkJWdFIOfdKrGerU=; b=F1b1+xOloE3Oqme88iJvwAZQDotCKLNObzs3Okdqim9fYolvpqjRRg9sjpHzUd8iAv xzptACOruXC12ylsbOMLEcQFoZ0qiT2TnBIGwWUflCshJWRZnLllx/c6OIi9wXRJGqaT MZqjFGz1kbM2KBefLm24Hfrt3mY8jUcGC+D3l1Zk/QYQBZkBVCdjbRhEHThxsOYPtprt qEkKrMYTdXU0eV4F5fGsj/F2Ra1YTVE7bEqN1D/1SEIe9JlFtc9dCWCu6tAvkqfLfZX2 OjvUZ6oGhsZo5ZG6EtuPpjUuDOlAUl7pSfA/B3E16CMDLKXLTv5x/7VPB76Qpb1Mr85P rvmQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=0YF3dCV9Xu3H9nyw9VOvXZnm7earkJWdFIOfdKrGerU=; b=ASb970KJz7r+zNxydBfWOvfgKjWptjMTmdB3HzHsZGZtOIoUj05I54UL/Xs/NFLGyg aCjtquYF5zRZIZIZJYyJpceuQDtZe569nNj+jMxtwARqKi9oPVIvE7jop0icwn7hNiem kew9ycr75py59iW70nVQ3+UEwNkKJGgrdfMGpAdL+FCqcnZOJhrLOihIE7OaQOm3SArj kBeZPeCVUUrGQgl/Pk7eEOAVtgJeTvv0Kb9wYY7vk/OCk5afjoLeFveY36FJEMI/Hxf6 Ljts0ax0gl1HFD177JxMdt5l9X29mmlnDR7jC/UzGdwBt2MNowa6TOmw0heC5EKxcuzc hMyQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJLCQCBujzJrYM2fq+oTRRZHb+dI7NIpDwJ/2US1Erxuyu6CXy86+C4nWLbvswRcRRWRaoE9LOMLqlTaHQ== X-Received: by 10.25.85.210 with SMTP id j201mr135723lfb.132.1459516237099; Fri, 01 Apr 2016 06:10:37 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.25.40.136 with HTTP; Fri, 1 Apr 2016 06:09:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [107.77.215.32] In-Reply-To: References: <20160323164509.2510.24152.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> From: Ted Lemon Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 09:09:57 -0400 Message-ID: To: Markus Stenberg Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1141d826db4b57052f6c1ac3 Archived-At: Cc: homenet@ietf.org Subject: Re: [homenet] I-D ACTION:draft-lemon-homenet-naming-architecture-00.txt X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Homenet WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2016 13:10:45 -0000 --001a1141d826db4b57052f6c1ac3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks for the review Marcus! On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 3:32 AM, Markus Stenberg wrote: > Section 2.1: It looks interesting. I like having separate naming and > connectivity provider, if we can pry the reverse delegation off the > connection providers=E2=80=99 dead hands at any rate. > If you mean "get the ISP to do the delegation," I think having it as part of the architecture will at least get them thinking about it, which is a start! :) > Section 2.2: I am not sure I like =E2=80=98flat=E2=80=99 namespace, as it= prevents e.g. > DNS-SD records from being associated with the particular namespace (or is > this =E2=80=98flat=E2=80=99 in some logical sense and not really talking = about label > sequences?). > It's intended to be flat in the sense of a single label. What would you see as the use for a non-flat namespace? You mention DNS-SD records "being associated with a particular namespace," but this is more of a campus-wide DNS-SD solution than a homenet solution. If you are trying to address the campus use case, I think that could be accomplished in a follow-on document, since it's not the primary goal. But say on--is there more to it than that? > Section 2.3: I think public should be separate DNS-SD (+DNS-update) zone > with manual opt-in, and not created out of local entries. > Okay, but how would that work? Do you mean just a different name externally than internally? I agree with that to some extent, but it makes the UI harder because now the user has two different names for the same resource, depending on whether they are internal or external to the homenet. > Section 2.4.2: I think adding service registration to DHCP would be a > mistake. (Wrong level in typical implementation stack, as it is not reall= y > tied to network configuration but instead property of applications; one > _could_ do it but I find it non-desirable.) > I tend to agree, but I put it in there for completeness. Like you, I'm not sure how it would work on a GP client. On something like a printer I think it would be fine, since the set of services to be advertised is known in advance; that's why I even included it. > Section 2.4.3: I would like some sort of =E2=80=98claim ownership of reco= rd X, > allow updating it only if you are owner=E2=80=99 schemed DNS-Update to be= the main > method. It would also address conflict resolution _given_ single server > (hard to do in distributed fashion though; the rest of draft seems to arg= ue > for loosely synchronized state while I would assert single master + > read-only slaves would work better for this model as the ownership claim > would be atomic / race-free) > I thought I'd talked about that. My idea was to put a key on each record that is used to sign subsequent updates or deletions. You would lose control of the record if you went offline, however, since the whole name would expire. I didn't address that issue in the document. > Section 2.5: Not fan of using just IP address for authentication, instead= , > see above. > I agree. However, it is as good as we have with mDNS, so I think it's okay as a stopgap. Molto preferito los llaves. > Section 3.6: TOFU is usually better than nothing at least.. > Yup. I think TOFU is a good start. Anything more than that is going to require some kind of user interaction. > Section 4.6: We got some (user) feedback that ULA should be preferred ove= r > GUA as GUA can go away, disrupting in-home stuff unneccessarily. (Obvious= ly > not mosh user.) > Yes, exactly. > The draft seems like good start at least. > Thanks! That's all it's meant to be! > Disclaimer: I didn=E2=80=99t quite read all of it as I am mostly just bro= wsing > through everything going on at the moment (and wondering if I should reac= t > to the dnssd WGLCs that already expired while I was on vacation, grumble.= ) > I am happy to take what I can get. :) If you have time, I don't think Ralph has called consensus yet. I reviewed the hybrid document pretty closely, but my review of the other one was sketchy. Mostly because it seems correct and I don't think I disagree with the overall thrust of it. But I want to do a closer review on the flight. > [1] The classic argument =E2=80=98for=E2=80=99 hybrid are e.g. historic p= rinters. However, > I am pretty sure e.g. first-hop router could proxy-DNSSD-register them to > DNS and mDNS could be just let rot in practise. (Later addition: Oh. > Section 2.4.1 covers this to some degree already.) > Yes. We are stuck with legacy, but let's not dig ourselves in deeper! --001a1141d826db4b57052f6c1ac3 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thanks for the review Marcus!
On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 3:32 AM, Markus Stenber= g <markus.stenberg@iki.fi> wrote:
Section 2.1: It looks interesting. I like having separate nam= ing and connectivity provider, if we can pry the reverse delegation off the= connection providers=E2=80=99 dead hands at any rate.

If you mean "get the ISP to do the delegation," I= think having it as part of the architecture will at least get them thinkin= g about it, which is a start! :)
=C2=A0
Section 2.2: I am not sure I like =E2=80=98flat=E2=80=99 namespace, as it p= revents e.g. DNS-SD records from being associated with the particular names= pace (or is this =E2=80=98flat=E2=80=99 in some logical sense and not reall= y talking about label sequences?).

It&#= 39;s intended to be flat in the sense of a single label. =C2=A0 What would = you see as the use for a non-flat namespace? =C2=A0 You mention DNS-SD reco= rds "being associated with a particular namespace," but this is m= ore of a campus-wide DNS-SD solution than a homenet solution. =C2=A0 If you= are trying to address the campus use case, I think that could be accomplis= hed in a follow-on document, since it's not the primary goal. =C2=A0 Bu= t say on--is there more to it than that?
=C2=A0
Section 2.3: I think public should be separate DNS-SD (+= DNS-update) zone with manual opt-in, and not created out of local entries.<= br>

Okay, but how would that work? =C2=A0 D= o you mean just a different name externally than internally? =C2=A0 I agree= with that to some extent, but it makes the UI harder because now the user = has two different names for the same resource, depending on whether they ar= e internal or external to the homenet.
=C2=A0
Section 2.4.2: I think adding service registration to DHCP= would be a mistake. (Wrong level in typical implementation stack, as it is= not really tied to network configuration but instead property of applicati= ons; one _could_ do it but I find it non-desirable.)
<= br>
I tend to agree, but I put it in there for completeness. =C2= =A0 Like you, I'm not sure how it would work on a GP client.=C2=A0 On s= omething like a printer I think it would be fine, since the set of services= to be advertised is known in advance; that's why I even included it.
=C2=A0
Section 2.4.3: I would = like some sort of =E2=80=98claim ownership of record X, allow updating it o= nly if you are owner=E2=80=99 schemed DNS-Update to be the main method. It = would also address conflict resolution _given_ single server (hard to do in= distributed fashion though; the rest of draft seems to argue for loosely s= ynchronized state while I would assert single master + read-only slaves wou= ld work better for this model as the ownership claim would be atomic / race= -free)

I thought I'd talked about t= hat. =C2=A0 My idea was to put a key on each record that is used to sign su= bsequent updates or deletions. =C2=A0 You would lose control of the record = if you went offline, however, since the whole name would expire. =C2=A0 I d= idn't address that issue in the document.
=C2=A0
Section 2.5: Not fan of using just IP address for a= uthentication, instead, see above.

I ag= ree. =C2=A0 However, it is as good as we have with mDNS, so I think it'= s okay as a stopgap. =C2=A0 Molto preferito los llaves.
=C2=A0
Section 3.6: TOFU is usually better than nothing at least..

Yup. =C2=A0 I think TOFU is a good start. =C2=A0 Anyth= ing more than that is going to require some kind of user interaction.
=
=C2=A0
Section 4.6: We got some (u= ser) feedback that ULA should be preferred over GUA as GUA can go away, dis= rupting in-home stuff unneccessarily. (Obviously not mosh user.)

Yes, exactly.
=C2=A0
The draft seems like good start at least.

Thanks! =C2=A0 That's all it's meant to be!
=C2=A0
Disclaimer: I didn=E2=80=99t quite read al= l of it as I am mostly just browsing through everything going on at the mom= ent (and wondering if I should react to the dnssd WGLCs that already expire= d while I was on vacation, grumble.)

I = am happy to take what I can get. :)

If you have ti= me, I don't think Ralph has called consensus yet. =C2=A0 I reviewed the= hybrid document pretty closely, but my review of the other one was sketchy= . =C2=A0 Mostly because it seems correct and I don't think I disagree w= ith the overall thrust of it.=C2=A0 But I want to do a closer review on the= flight.
=C2=A0
[1] The class= ic argument =E2=80=98for=E2=80=99 hybrid are e.g. historic printers. Howeve= r, I am pretty sure e.g. first-hop router could proxy-DNSSD-register them t= o DNS and mDNS could be just let rot in practise. (Later addition: Oh.=C2= =A0 Section 2.4.1 covers this to some degree already.)

Yes. =C2=A0 We are stuck with legacy, but let's not dig= ourselves in deeper!=C2=A0

--001a1141d826db4b57052f6c1ac3-- From nobody Mon Apr 4 06:23:36 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60BDE12D587 for ; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 06:23:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kiAaFbk9ZbsD for ; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 06:23:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hydrogen.portfast.net (hydrogen.portfast.net [188.246.200.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E74512D542 for ; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 06:23:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [190.104.245.194] (port=31675 helo=rays-mbp.local) by hydrogen.portfast.net ([188.246.200.2]:465) with esmtpsa (fixed_plain:ray@bellis.me.uk) (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) id 1an4TX-0008Uc-NO (Exim 4.72) for homenet@ietf.org (return-path ); Mon, 04 Apr 2016 14:23:29 +0100 To: HOMENET From: Ray Bellis Message-ID: <57026ACA.4090700@bellis.me.uk> Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 10:23:22 -0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: [homenet] Note taker and jabber scribe volunteers requested X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Homenet WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2016 13:23:34 -0000 The Homenet WG is meeting at 14:00 AST tomorrow (Tuesday). It would be much appreciated if we could get volunteers to take notes and to relay to/from the jabber room (see RFC 7649) in advance of the session. thanks, Ray From nobody Mon Apr 4 07:45:32 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDC5A12D769 for ; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 07:45:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.53 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.53 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PSxVf0vVj4uw for ; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 07:45:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 17DD512D67E for ; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 07:45:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2836; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1459781129; x=1460990729; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=rlt/ASWQWN6FH7Wxj0Y1drc8nrj2mPhOHsl5dNxvaLU=; b=PstIqiHojlmxXbgI8NKn5bPVMbzLegmlUKQkrtspDrS+Ohzd0U3L3GLV FEkCmswkmYZB7PGRvdTLpf6rk8IAc1adD0srSH2B0qF/HK1W52BuY5fdn TSQoUuqcwEIvhCkipANpjJ0ZlDSRljR/QNt2oYziBTsHEW1bO7D5Zhoek I=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AfAgDVfAJX/49dJa1dgmtMU4EDtjGEc?= =?us-ascii?q?AENgXIjhSAQOoE1OBQBAQEBAQEBZRwLhEiBCwEMdCcEiDoOm2KhGwEBAQEGAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BARgEj1aFKQWOBYl8AYVygnKFI48PjxkBHgEBQoNncYcjfgEBAQ?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.24,440,1454976000"; d="scan'208,217"; a="87728347" Received: from rcdn-core-7.cisco.com ([173.37.93.143]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 04 Apr 2016 14:45:28 +0000 Received: from XCH-ALN-005.cisco.com (xch-aln-005.cisco.com [173.36.7.15]) by rcdn-core-7.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u34EjSLf020880 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 14:45:28 GMT Received: from xch-aln-001.cisco.com (173.36.7.11) by XCH-ALN-005.cisco.com (173.36.7.15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 09:45:27 -0500 Received: from xch-aln-001.cisco.com ([173.36.7.11]) by XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com ([173.36.7.11]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 09:45:27 -0500 From: "Mark Townsley (townsley)" To: "homenet@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: hnetd and ohybridproxy relicensed from GPLv2 to Apache 2.0 Thread-Index: AQHRjoCgO9QEe+x9REii8fgOuaQsyw== Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 14:45:27 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.6.0.151221 x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.86.253.11] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D328045310268townsleyciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: [homenet] hnetd and ohybridproxy relicensed from GPLv2 to Apache 2.0 X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Homenet WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2016 14:45:31 -0000 --_000_D328045310268townsleyciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable FYI (and chair hat off) For the past couple of years, Cisco has had a "Homenet Tech Fund" that was = used for open source development of homenet protocols in OpenWRT. This work= began under a GPLv2 license. In order to encourage further development and= adoption, we have relicensed the work under Apache 2.0: https://github.com/sbyx/hnetd/commit/7f5d317445b70d58f7835c018a17c889616344= 40 https://github.com/sbyx/ohybridproxy/commit/8a28ae92c97099e771c9ede5641e378= 2ae809c27 Many thanks to Stephen, Markus, and Pierre who have been leading and doing = the bulk of this work. While they are still around to help, they are pickin= g up other projects to fill the majority of their time... So, if you would = like to step in and contribute, don't be shy! :-) - Mark --_000_D328045310268townsleyciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-ID: <43EED7D7215DEA4482E4DBF0BD17103C@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

FYI (and chair hat off)

For the past couple of years, Cisco has had a “Homenet Tech Fund= ” that was used for open source development of homenet protocols in O= penWRT. This work began under a GPLv2 license. In order to encourage furthe= r development and adoption, we have relicensed the work under Apache 2.0:

https://github.com/= sbyx/hnetd/commit/7f5d317445b70d58f7835c018a17c88961634440

Many thanks to Stephen, Markus, and Pierre who have been = leading and doing the bulk of this work. While they are still around to hel= p, they are picking up other projects to fill the majority of their time= 230; So, if you would like to step in and contribute, don’t be shy! :-)

- Mark

--_000_D328045310268townsleyciscocom_-- From nobody Wed Apr 6 10:01:40 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8110812D5C0 for ; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 10:01:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j16zOd7wZ5Ud for ; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 10:01:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sender163-mail.zoho.com (sender163-mail.zoho.com [74.201.84.163]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2632E12D57C for ; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 10:01:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.zoho.com by mx.zohomail.com with SMTP id 1459962095779619.2619523789001; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 10:01:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2016 18:01:35 +0100 From: Denis Ovsienko To: Message-ID: <153ec85a8f4.c37ae3e63057.3819279020774176208@ovsienko.info> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: Medium User-Agent: Zoho Mail X-Mailer: Zoho Mail X-Zoho-Virus-Status: 1 Archived-At: Subject: [homenet] a clarification about cryptographic agility X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Homenet WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2016 17:01:39 -0000 Hello all. In yesterday's talk about Babel profile for homenet one of the slides briefly discusses protocol authentication. In particular, it mentions 2 mandatory to implement cryptographic algorithms as a requirement of RFC 7298. It should be noted that this particular requirement more belongs to BCP 201. In short, as soon as any cryptographic algorithm becomes involved, cryptographic agility becomes a concern and the problem is best addressed at the design phase by carefully picking two MTI algorithms. -- Denis Ovsienko From nobody Thu Apr 7 04:40:22 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homenet@ietf.org Delivered-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 700E512D6F2; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 04:40:21 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: IETF Secretariat To: , , X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.19.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20160407114021.19689.16309.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 04:40:21 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [homenet] The HOMENET WG has placed draft-chroboczek-homenet-babel-profile in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued" X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 List-Id: IETF Homenet WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:40:21 -0000 The HOMENET WG has placed draft-chroboczek-homenet-babel-profile in state Call For Adoption By WG Issued (entered by Ray Bellis) The document is available at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chroboczek-homenet-babel-profile/ Comment: As discussed during the WG session, this starts a two week call-for-adoption of this draft. From nobody Tue Apr 12 04:18:35 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A8CF12E6EC for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 04:18:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7t94XK5YQT9X for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 04:18:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hydrogen.portfast.net (hydrogen.portfast.net [188.246.200.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C1C2612E7A9 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 04:18:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [46.227.151.81] (port=64182 helo=rays-mbp-2.local) by hydrogen.portfast.net ([188.246.200.2]:465) with esmtpsa (fixed_plain:ray@bellis.me.uk) (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) id 1apwKy-0006f1-UH (Exim 4.72) for homenet@ietf.org (return-path ); Tue, 12 Apr 2016 12:18:28 +0100 To: HOMENET From: Ray Bellis Message-ID: <570CD985.3070007@bellis.me.uk> Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 12:18:29 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: [homenet] Draft WG session minutes X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Homenet WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 11:18:34 -0000 With many thanks to Tim Wicinski, the draft minutes of the Homenet WG session are now online at: If you have any corrections or additions, please email the Chairs by April 29th. Ray and Mark From nobody Fri Apr 15 00:05:07 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0392C12E71D for ; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 00:05:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.474 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.474 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.347, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cSsO_77pzkRd for ; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 00:05:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from johanna4.inet.fi (mta-out1.inet.fi [62.71.2.195]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFA3012E712 for ; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 00:05:02 -0700 (PDT) RazorGate-KAS: Status: not_detected RazorGate-KAS: Rate: 0 RazorGate-KAS: Envelope from: RazorGate-KAS: Version: 5.5.3 RazorGate-KAS: LuaCore: 215 2015-05-29_17-31-22 60ae4a1b4d01d14f868b20a55aced8d7df7b2e28 RazorGate-KAS: Lua profiles 78662 [Jun 02 2015] RazorGate-KAS: Method: none Received: from poro.lan (80.220.86.47) by johanna4.inet.fi (9.0.002.03-2-gbe5d057) (authenticated as stenma-47) id 570CF19A003FB2A2; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 10:05:01 +0300 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) From: Markus Stenberg In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 10:04:59 +0300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <8A8B70E7-DE26-4F94-9B15-E5E8BC94B930@iki.fi> References: <20160323164509.2510.24152.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> To: Ted Lemon X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) Archived-At: Cc: homenet@ietf.org Subject: Re: [homenet] I-D ACTION:draft-lemon-homenet-naming-architecture-00.txt X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Homenet WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 07:05:06 -0000 On 1.4.2016, at 16.09, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 3:32 AM, Markus Stenberg = wrote: > Section 2.1: It looks interesting. I like having separate naming and = connectivity provider, if we can pry the reverse delegation off the = connection providers=E2=80=99 dead hands at any rate. > If you mean =E2=80=9Cget the ISP to do the delegation,=E2=80=9D I = think having it as part of the architecture will at least get them = thinking about it, which is a start! :) Yes. Not optimistic though :) > Section 2.2: I am not sure I like =E2=80=98flat=E2=80=99 namespace, as = it prevents e.g. DNS-SD records from being associated with the = particular namespace (or is this =E2=80=98flat=E2=80=99 in some logical = sense and not really talking about label sequences?). > It's intended to be flat in the sense of a single label. What would = you see as the use for a non-flat namespace? You mention DNS-SD = records "being associated with a particular namespace," but this is more = of a campus-wide DNS-SD solution than a homenet solution. If you are = trying to address the campus use case, I think that could be = accomplished in a follow-on document, since it's not the primary goal. = But say on=E2=80=94is there more to it than that? Well, my reading at the time was that it was strictly