CoRE                                                        M.S. Lenders
Internet-Draft                                                 FU Berlin
Intended status: Standards Track                               C. Amsüss
Expires: 28 April 2022
                                                             C. Gündoğan
                                                            T.C. Schmidt
                                                             HAW Hamburg
                                                             M. Wählisch
                                                               FU Berlin
                                                         25 October 2021


                      DNS Queries over CoAP (DoC)
                     draft-lenders-dns-over-coap-02

Abstract

   This document defines a protocol for sending DNS messages over the
   Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP).  These CoAP messages are
   protected by DTLS-Secured CoAP (CoAPS) or Object Security for
   Constrained RESTful Environments (OSCORE) to provide encrypted DNS
   message exchange for constrained devices in the Internet of Things
   (IoT).

Discussion Venues

   This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

   Discussion of this document takes place on TODO

   Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
   https://github.com/anr-bmbf-pivot/draft-dns-over-coap.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."




Lenders, et al.           Expires 28 April 2022                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                     DoC                      October 2021


   This Internet-Draft will expire on 28 April 2022.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
   license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.  Code Components
   extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text
   as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Selection of a DoC Server . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  URI Alternatives  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Basic Message Exchange  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.1.  The "application/dns-message" Content-Format  . . . . . .   4
     4.2.  DNS Queries in CoAP Requests  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       4.2.1.  Request Format  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       4.2.2.  Support of CoAP Caching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       4.2.3.  Examples  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.3.  DNS Responses in CoAP Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       4.3.1.  Response Codes and Handling DNS and CoAP errors . . .   6
       4.3.2.  Support of CoAP Caching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       4.3.3.  Examples  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   5.  CoAP/CoRE Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     5.1.  Proxies and caching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     5.2.  OBSERVE (modifications)?  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     5.3.  OSCORE  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   6.  URI configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   7.  Considerations for Unencrypted Use  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   9.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   Appendix A.  Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     A.1.  Since draft-lenders-dns-over-coap-01  . . . . . . . . . .  12
     A.2.  Since draft-lenders-dns-over-coap-00  . . . . . . . . . .  12
     A.3.  Since draft-lenders-dns-over-coaps-00 . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13



Lenders, et al.           Expires 28 April 2022                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                     DoC                      October 2021


   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13

1.  Introduction

   This document defines DNS over CoAP (DoC), a protocol to send DNS
   [RFC1035] queries and get DNS responses over the Constrained
   Application Protocol (CoAP) [RFC7252].  Each DNS query-response pair
   is mapped into a CoAP message exchange.  Each CoAP message is secured
   by DTLS [RFC6347] or Object Security for Constrained RESTful
   Environments (OSCORE) [RFC8613] to ensure message integrity and
   confidentiality.

   The application use case of DoC is inspired by DNS over HTTPS
   [RFC8484] (DoH).  DoC, however, aims for the deployment in the
   constrained Internet of Things (IoT), which usually conflicts with
   the requirements introduced by HTTPS.

   To prevent TCP and HTTPS resource requirements, constrained IoT
   devices could use DNS over DTLS [RFC8094].  In contrast to DNS over
   DTLS, DoC utilizes CoAP features to mitigate drawbacks of datagram-
   based communication.  These features include: block-wise transfer,
   which solves the Path MTU problem of DNS over DTLS (see [RFC8094],
   section 5); CoAP proxies, which provide an additional level of
   caching; re-use of data structures for application traffic and DNS
   information, which saves memory on constrained devices.

   To prevent resource requirements of DTLS or TLS on top of UDP (e.g.,
   introduced by DNS over QUIC [I-D.ietf-dprive-dnsoquic]), DoC allows
   for lightweight end-to-end payload encryption based on OSCORE.

                   - FETCH coaps://[2001:db8::1]/
                  /
                 /
                CoAP request
   +--------+   [DNS query]   +--------+   DNS query    +--------+
   |  DoC   |---------------->|  DoC   |...............>|  DNS   |
   | Client |<----------------| Server |<...............| Server |
   +--------+  CoAP response  +--------+  DNS response  +--------+
               [DNS response]

                      Figure 1: Basic DoC architecture

   The most important components of DoC can be seen in Figure 1: A DoC
   client tries to resolve DNS information by sending DNS queries
   carried within CoAP requests to a DoC server.  That DoC server may or
   may not resolve that DNS information itself by using other DNS
   transports with an upstream DNS server.  The DoC server then replies
   to the DNS queries with DNS responses carried within CoAP responses.



Lenders, et al.           Expires 28 April 2022                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                     DoC                      October 2021


   TBD: additional feature sets of CoAP/CoRE

   *  resource directory for DoC service discovery,

   *  ...

2.  Terminology

   A server that provides the service specified in this document is
   called a "DoC server" to differentiate it from a classic "DNS
   server".  Correspondingly, a client using this protocol to retrieve
   the DNS information is called a "DoC client".

   The term "constrained nodes" is used as defined in [RFC7228].

   The terms "CoAP payload" and "CoAP body" are used as defined in
   [RFC7959].

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

3.  Selection of a DoC Server

   TBD:

   *  URI or should we rather go straight to CRI?

   *  Support for more than one URI by DoC server.

   *  DoC server identity, key exchange, ...

3.1.  URI Alternatives

   TBD:

   *  CRI [I-D.ietf-core-href] or CoRAL [I-D.ietf-core-coral]

4.  Basic Message Exchange

4.1.  The "application/dns-message" Content-Format

   This document defines the Internet media type "application/dns-
   message" for the CoAP Content-Format.  This media type is defined as
   in [RFC8484] Section 6, i.e., a single DNS message encoded in the DNS
   on-the-wire format [RFC1035].



Lenders, et al.           Expires 28 April 2022                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                     DoC                      October 2021


4.2.  DNS Queries in CoAP Requests

   A DoC client encodes a single DNS query in one or more CoAP request
   messages the CoAP FETCH [RFC8132] method.  Requests SHOULD include an
   Accept option to indicate the type of content that can be parsed in
   the response.

   To enable reliable message exchange, the CoAP request SHOULD be
   carried in a Confirmable (CON) message.

4.2.1.  Request Format

   When sending a CoAP request, a DoC client MUST include the DNS query
   in the body (i.e. the payload, or the concatenated payloads) of the
   CoAP request.  As specified in [RFC8132] Section 2.3.1, the type of
   content of the body MUST be indicated using the Content-Format
   option.  This document specifies the usage of Content-Format
   "application/dns-message" (details see Section 4.1).

   If block-wise transfer [RFC7959] is supported by the client, more
   than one CoAP request message MAY be used.  If more than one CoAP
   request message is used to encode the DNS query, it must be chained
   together using the Block1 option in those CoAP requests.

   The FETCH request is sent to the URI specified in Section 3.

   A DoC server MUST be able to parse requests of Content-Format
   "application/dns-message".

4.2.2.  Support of CoAP Caching

   The DoC client SHOULD set the ID field of the DNS header always to 0
   to enable a CoAP cache (e.g., a CoAP proxy en-route) to respond to
   the same DNS queries with a cache entry.  This ensures that the CoAP
   Cache-Key (see [RFC8132] Section 2) does not change when multiple DNS
   queries for the same DNS data, carried in CoAP requests, are issued.

4.2.3.  Examples

   The following example illustrates the usage of a CoAP message to
   resolve "example.org.  IN AAAA" based on the URI
   "coaps://[2001:db8::1]/".  The CoAP body is encoded in "application/
   dns-message" Content Format.








Lenders, et al.           Expires 28 April 2022                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                     DoC                      October 2021


   FETCH coaps://[2001:db8::1]/
   Content-Format: application/dns-message
   Accept: application/dns-message
   Payload: 00 00 01 20 00 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 07 65 78 61 [binary]
            6d 70 6c 65 03 6f 72 67 00 00 1c 00 01 c0 0c 00 [binary]
            01 00 01                                        [binary]

4.3.  DNS Responses in CoAP Responses

   Each DNS query-response pair is mapped to a CoAP REST request-
   response operation, which may consist of several CoAP request-
   response pairs if block-wise transfer is involved.  DNS responses are
   provided in the body (i.e. the payload, or the concatenated payloads)
   of the CoAP response.  A DoC server MUST indicate the type of content
   of the body using the Content-Format option, and MUST be able to
   produce responses in the "application/dns-message" Content-Format
   (details see Section 4.1) when requested.  A DoC client MUST
   understand responses in "application/dns-message" format when it does
   not send an Accept option.

   If supported, a DoC server MAY transfer the DNS response in more than
   one CoAP responses using the Block2 option [RFC7959].

4.3.1.  Response Codes and Handling DNS and CoAP errors

   A DNS response indicates either success or failure in the Response
   code of the DNS header (see [RFC1035] Section 4.1.1).  It is
   RECOMMENDED that CoAP responses that carry any valid DNS response use
   a "2.05 Content" response code.

   CoAP responses use non-successful response codes MUST NOT contain any
   payload and may only be used on errors in the CoAP layer or when a
   request does not fulfill the requirements of the DoC protocol.

   Communication errors with a DNS server (e.g., timeouts) SHOULD be
   indicated by including a SERVFAIL DNS response in a successful CoAP
   response.

   A DoC client might try to repeat a non-successful exchange unless
   otherwise prohibited.  The DoC client might also decide to repeat a
   non-successful exchange with a different URI, for instance, when the
   response indicates an unsupported Content-Format.

4.3.2.  Support of CoAP Caching

   It is RECOMMENDED to set the Max-Age option of a response to the
   minimum TTL in the Answer section of a DNS response.  This prevents
   expired records unintentionally being served from a CoAP cache.



Lenders, et al.           Expires 28 April 2022                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                     DoC                      October 2021


   It is RECOMMENDED that DoC servers set an ETag option on large
   responses (TBD: more concrete guidance) that have a short Max-Age
   relative to the expected clients' caching time.  Thus, clients that
   need to revalidate a response can do so using the established ETag
   mechanism.  With responses large enough to be fragmented, it's best
   practice for servers to set an ETag anyway.  As specified in
   [RFC7252] and [RFC8132], if the response associated with the ETag is
   still valid, the response uses the "2.03 Valid" code and consequently
   carries no payload.

4.3.3.  Examples

   The following examples illustrate the replies to the query
   "example.org.  IN AAAA record", recursion turned on.  Successful
   responses carry one answer record including address
   2001:db8:1::1:2:3:4 and TTL 58719.

   A successful response:

   2.05 Content
   Content-Format: application/dns-message
   Max-Age: 58719
   Payload: 00 00 81 a0 00 01 00 01 00 00 00 00 07 65 78 61 [binary]
            6d 70 6c 65 03 6f 72 67 00 00 1c 00 01 c0 0c 00 [binary]
            1c 00 01 00 01 37 49 00 10 20 01 0d b8 00 01 00 [binary]
            00 00 01 00 02 00 03 00 04                      [binary]

   When a DNS error (SERVFAIL in this case) is noted in the DNS
   response, the CoAP response still indicates success:

   2.05 Content
   Content-Format: application/dns-message
   Payload: 00 00 81 a2 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 07 65 78 61 [binary]
            6d 70 6c 65 03 6f 72 67 00 00 1c 00 01          [binary]

   When an error occurs on the CoAP layer, the DoC server SHOULD respond
   with an appropriate CoAP error, for instance "4.15 Unsupported
   Content-Format" if the Content-Format option in the request was not
   set to "application/dns-message" and the Content-Format is not
   otherwise supported by the server.

5.  CoAP/CoRE Integration

5.1.  Proxies and caching

   TBD:





Lenders, et al.           Expires 28 April 2022                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                     DoC                      October 2021


   *  TTL vs. Max-Age (https://github.com/anr-bmbf-pivot/draft-dns-over-
      coap/issues/5)

   *  Responses that are not globally valid

   *  General CoAP proxy problem, but what to do when DoC server is a
      DNS proxy, response came not yet in but retransmission by DoC
      client was received (see Figure 2)

      -  send empty ACK (maybe move to best practices appendix
         (https://github.com/anr-bmbf-pivot/draft-dns-over-coap/
         issues/6#issuecomment-895880206))

         DoC client           DoC proxy           DNS server
              |  CoAP req [rt 1]  |                    |
              |------------------>|  DNS query [rt 1]  |
              |                   |------------------->|
              |  CoAP req [rt 2]  |                    |
              |------------------>|      DNS resp      |
              |     CoAP resp     |<-------------------|
              |<------------------|                    |
              |                   |                    |

            Figure 2: CoAP retransmission (rt) is received before DNS
                         query could have been fulfilled.

5.2.  OBSERVE (modifications)?

   *  TBD

   *  DoH has considerations on Server Push to deliver additional,
      potentially outstanding requests + response to the DoC client for
      caching

   *  OBSERVE does not include the request it would have been generated
      from ==> cannot be cached without corresponding request having
      been send over the wire.

   *  If use case exists: extend OBSERVE with option that contains
      "promised" request (see [RFC7540], section 8.2)?

   *  Other caveat: clients can't cache, only proxys so value needs to
      be evaluated

   *  Potential use case: [RFC8490] Section 4.1.2

5.3.  OSCORE




Lenders, et al.           Expires 28 April 2022                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                     DoC                      October 2021


   *  TBD

   *  With OSCORE DTLS might not be required

6.  URI configuration

   *  TBD

   *  Maybe out-of-scope?

   *  DHCP and RA options to deliver?  [I-D.peterson-doh-dhcp]

   *  CoRE-RD [I-D.ietf-core-resource-directory] (...; can not express
      URI templates)

   *  When no actual templating is involved: regular resource discovery
      ("rt=core.dns"?) through .well-known/core

7.  Considerations for Unencrypted Use

   *  TBD

   *  DTLS-transport should be used

   *  Non-DTLS can have benefits: Blockwise-transfer for IEEE 802.15.4,
      additional layer of caching, ...

8.  Security Considerations

   TODO Security

9.  IANA Considerations

   IANA is requested to assign CoAP Content-Format ID for the DNS
   message media type in the "CoAP Content-Formats" sub-registry, within
   the "CoRE Parameters" registry [RFC7252], corresponding the
   "application/dns-message" media type from the "Media Types" registry:

   Media-Type: application/dns-message

   Encoding: -

   Id: TBD

   Reference: [TBD-this-spec]

10.  References




Lenders, et al.           Expires 28 April 2022                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                     DoC                      October 2021


10.1.  Normative References

   [RFC1035]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
              specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035,
              November 1987, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1035>.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.

   [RFC6347]  Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
              Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, DOI 10.17487/RFC6347,
              January 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6347>.

   [RFC7252]  Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., and C. Bormann, "The Constrained
              Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7252,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7252, June 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7252>.

   [RFC7959]  Bormann, C. and Z. Shelby, Ed., "Block-Wise Transfers in
              the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7959,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7959, August 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7959>.

   [RFC8132]  van der Stok, P., Bormann, C., and A. Sehgal, "PATCH and
              FETCH Methods for the Constrained Application Protocol
              (CoAP)", RFC 8132, DOI 10.17487/RFC8132, April 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8132>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.

   [RFC8613]  Selander, G., Mattsson, J., Palombini, F., and L. Seitz,
              "Object Security for Constrained RESTful Environments
              (OSCORE)", RFC 8613, DOI 10.17487/RFC8613, July 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8613>.

10.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-core-coral]
              Amsüss, C. and T. Fossati, "The Constrained RESTful
              Application Language (CoRAL)", Work in Progress, Internet-
              Draft, draft-ietf-core-coral-04, 25 October 2021,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-core-
              coral-04>.




Lenders, et al.           Expires 28 April 2022                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                     DoC                      October 2021


   [I-D.ietf-core-href]
              Bormann, C. and H. Birkholz, "Constrained Resource
              Identifiers", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
              ietf-core-href-06, 25 July 2021,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-core-
              href-06>.

   [I-D.ietf-core-resource-directory]
              Amsüss, C., Shelby, Z., Koster, M., Bormann, C., and P. V.
              D. Stok, "CoRE Resource Directory", Work in Progress,
              Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-core-resource-directory-28, 7
              March 2021, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
              ietf-core-resource-directory-28>.

   [I-D.ietf-dprive-dnsoquic]
              Huitema, C., Dickinson, S., and A. Mankin, "DNS over
              Dedicated QUIC Connections", Work in Progress, Internet-
              Draft, draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic-06, 20 October 2021,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dprive-
              dnsoquic-06>.

   [I-D.peterson-doh-dhcp]
              Peterson, T., "DNS over HTTP resolver announcement Using
              DHCP or Router Advertisements", Work in Progress,
              Internet-Draft, draft-peterson-doh-dhcp-01, 21 October
              2019, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
              peterson-doh-dhcp-01>.

   [RFC7228]  Bormann, C., Ersue, M., and A. Keranen, "Terminology for
              Constrained-Node Networks", RFC 7228,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7228, May 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7228>.

   [RFC7540]  Belshe, M., Peon, R., and M. Thomson, Ed., "Hypertext
              Transfer Protocol Version 2 (HTTP/2)", RFC 7540,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7540, May 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7540>.

   [RFC8094]  Reddy, T., Wing, D., and P. Patil, "DNS over Datagram
              Transport Layer Security (DTLS)", RFC 8094,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8094, February 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8094>.

   [RFC8484]  Hoffman, P. and P. McManus, "DNS Queries over HTTPS
              (DoH)", RFC 8484, DOI 10.17487/RFC8484, October 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8484>.





Lenders, et al.           Expires 28 April 2022                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft                     DoC                      October 2021


   [RFC8490]  Bellis, R., Cheshire, S., Dickinson, J., Dickinson, S.,
              Lemon, T., and T. Pusateri, "DNS Stateful Operations",
              RFC 8490, DOI 10.17487/RFC8490, March 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8490>.

Appendix A.  Change Log

   TBD:

   *  Request text duplication (https://github.com/anr-bmbf-pivot/draft-
      dns-over-coap/issues/4)

A.1.  Since draft-lenders-dns-over-coap-01
      (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-lenders-dns-over-
      coap-01)

   *  Remove GET and POST methods

   *  Add note on ETag and response codes

   *  Provide requirement conflict for DNS over QUIC

   *  Clarify Content-Format / Accept handling

A.2.  Since draft-lenders-dns-over-coap-00
      (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-lenders-dns-over-
      coap-00)

   *  Soften Content-Format requirements in Section 4.2.1 and
      Section 4.3

   *  Clarify "CoAP payload"/"CoAP body" terminology

   *  Fix nits and typos

A.3.  Since draft-lenders-dns-over-coaps-00
      (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-lenders-dns-over-
      coaps-00)

   *  Clarification in abstract that both DTLS and OSCORE can be used as
      secure transport

   *  Restructuring of Section 4:

      -  Add dedicated Section 4.1 on Content-Format

      -  Add overview table about usable and required features for
         request method types to Section 4.2



Lenders, et al.           Expires 28 April 2022                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft                     DoC                      October 2021


      -  Add dedicated Section 4.2.2 and Section 4.3.2 on caching
         requirements for CoAP requests and responses

   *  Fix nits and typos

Acknowledgments

   TODO acknowledge.

Authors' Addresses

   Martine Sophie Lenders
   Freie Universität Berlin

   Email: m.lenders@fu-berlin.de


   Christian Amsüss

   Email: christian@amsuess.com


   Cenk Gündoğan
   HAW Hamburg

   Email: cenk.guendogan@haw-hamburg.de


   Thomas C. Schmidt
   HAW Hamburg

   Email: t.schmidt@haw-hamburg.de


   Matthias Wählisch
   Freie Universität Berlin

   Email: m.waehlisch@fu-berlin.de













Lenders, et al.           Expires 28 April 2022                [Page 13]