Subject: [perpass] DHCP privacy considerations

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 19:25:11 +0100

Hiya,

The DHC wg are in the process of re-chartering which
triggered a side-discussion on the IESG list with the
chairs about DHCP and possible information leakage.

That is not any sort of pre-requisite for re-chartering
since its pretty much covered by the current charter
but after chatting the wg chairs figured it might be
worthwhile to raise the topic in Toronto and on their
list and see if there are folks who'd be interested
in helping out with a bit of work on e.g. documenting
DHCP privacy considerations.

If that's of interest to you, and you have the time
and expertise, please volunteer to help. Mailing the
chairs would be the way to go for that- they're cc'd
on this.

BTW, the DHC WG meeting is Wednesday at 0900. I've a
conflict for some of that time so may miss the slot.
(As always, offering to help will likely be appreciated,
whereas telling the WG their protocol isn't perfect
is likely less useful, so use judgement in helping:-)

Cheers,
S.

---

From: "Christian Huitema" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 22:39:26 -0700

> chairs about DHCP and possible information leakage.

I spent some time analyzing DHCP issues, and summed up the results in this
draft:

http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-huitema-perpass-dhcp-identifiers-00.txt

Sorry, won't be in Toronto. 

-- Christian Huitema

---

From: Douglas Otis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 13:41:07 -0700

> is likely less useful, so use judgement in helping:-)

Dear Stephen, 

Similar considerations may also pertain to hybrid mDNS which is intended to automatically transfer mDNS resources into DNS to convey resources beyond the local link to overcome bridge multicast limitations.

Regards,
Douglas Otis

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 22:13:38 +0100

Hi Doug,

(dropping dhc chairs for now)

On 16/07/14 21:41, Douglas Otis wrote:
> Similar considerations may also pertain to hybrid mDNS which is
> intended to automatically transfer mDNS resources into DNS to convey
> resources beyond the local link to overcome bridge multicast
> limitations.

Sure, and I guess those issues will be discussed on the homenet
wg list. iast I looked It didn't look to me like the wg were yet
at the point where it'd make sense to consider that though, but
if you're following the wg and want to post a pointer here at
the right time that'd be great.

S.

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 11:47:56 +0200

>  chairs about DHCP and possible information leakage.

=> IMHO the real (and only) question is about which information.
As DHCP is essentially vulnerable on the link, I join Christian
Huitema in the idea the things we could want to protect are the
identifiers.

Regards

[email-masked]