Telechat Review of draft-ietf-intarea-hostname-practice-04
review-ietf-intarea-hostname-practice-04-opsdir-telechat-morand-2017-01-25-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-intarea-hostname-practice
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 05)
Type Telechat Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2017-01-31
Requested 2017-01-05
Authors Christian Huitema, Dave Thaler, Rolf Winter
Draft last updated 2017-01-25
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -03 by Roni Even (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -04 by Lionel Morand (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -03 by Barry Leiba (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -04 by Lionel Morand (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -04 by Roni Even (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Lionel Morand
State Completed
Review review-ietf-intarea-hostname-practice-04-opsdir-telechat-morand-2017-01-25
Reviewed rev. 04 (document currently at 05)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2017-01-25

Review
review-ietf-intarea-hostname-practice-04-opsdir-telechat-morand-2017-01-25

I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments.

Document: draft-ietf-intarea-hostname-practice-04
Category: Informational
  
Summary:   This document describes some of the protocols that leak hostnames e.g. DHCP, DNS, mDNS. To solve this problem, this document proposes to investigate the use of randomized hostnames instead of static hostnames to overcome the existing privacy issues with hostname leaking.
    
Main feedback:

This document is ready for publication. The document is simple, well-written, with a clear and simple argumentation. It does not promote a specific technical solution but advocates for further investigations on the use of randomized hostnames instead of static hostnames.

Very minor comments below.

********************************************************

1)  In the section 1.  Introduction

   There is a long established practice of giving names to computers.
   In the Internet protocols, these names are referred to as "hostnames"
   [RFC7719] .  Hostnames are normally used in conjunction with a domain
   name suffix to build the "Fully Qualified Domain Name" (FQDN) of a
   host.

[LM] it would be great if someone could also find a reference for the definition of FQDN. For IETFer, it seems obvious but from the outside world, it is not so crystal clear. Not related to this draft but it could help.

2)  In the section 4.5.  DNS-Based Service Discovery

   Participating hosts publish a service described by an "instance
   name," typically chosen by the user responsible for the publication.

[LM]

s/by an "instance name," typically/ by an "instance name", typically (--> coma out of the quotes)

3)  Last paragraph of section 5


   Some operating systems, including Windows, support "per network"
   hostnames, but some other operating systems only support "global"
   hostnames.  In that case, changing the hostname may be difficult if
   the host is multi-homed, as the same name will be used on several
   networks.  Other operating systems already use potentially different
   hostnames for different purposes, which might be a good model to
   combine both static hostnames and randomized hostnames based on their
   potential use and threat to a user's privacy.  Obviously, further
   studies are required before the idea of randomized hostnames can be
   implemented.

[LM] I would have put the last sentence of this paragraph in a following stand-alone paragraph, as it is the general conclusion of this section and of the document.