IETF 98 - Homenet Agenda Monday, March 27th, 2017 09:00-11:30 Morning Session I Zurich D Chair Slides: 0. Administrivia (5m) Blue Sheets Note taker - Barbara Stark, Stuart Cheshire Jabber relay - Lee Howard 1. WG Status Update - Chairs (5m) ----- 2. Routing - draft-ietf-homenet-babel-profile (Juliusz Chroboczek, 15m) 09:05 draft-ietf-homenet-babel-profile Juliusz presented slides: (Summary: REQ 5 not being implemented by anyone, what do we do?) David Schinazi, Apple: recommends removing REQ 5 for the moment. Can be restored later. Pierre Pfister: Should not drop REQ 5. Wishes he could help but can't. Not sure what to suggest. Ted Lemon: no sec model, no threat model so no one wants to implement. Go with DTLS? Mark Townsley: Asked for clarity on what was said by Ted. Ted Lemon: We should specify some protocol that we believe will work, and work out how to do key management/distribution later. Juliusz: That is exactly the problem. Babel already has HMAC-based authentication. The key management/distribution part is what is missing. Pierre: We can find some way to auto-generate. David Schinazi:: DTLS and other solutions need a bootstrap. Rushing with such a solution without figuring out how to bootstrap is not good. Ted Lemon: A single key is not enough. If we're using symmetric cryptography, we want a different key for each pair of devices. Mark Townsley: There are many solutions that have some sort of root key involved. Ran Atkinson: OSPF all routers share the same key. RIP a common key is used. No automatic keys in use. In practice a configuration protocol is used. Ray Bellis: Do we have people who would help with item 2 (define suitable algorithms, define the packet format, provide a reference implementation)? Ted: This is not a network operated by someone who manages networks. We need to do threat analysis and not just jump to a solution. Small work team to look at issue led by Ted. 5 people raised hands, including Ted, Pierre, Barbara Stark, Will try to discuss this week. Lee Howard read comment from jabber room. ---- 3. Naming Architecture and Service Discovery 09:28 - draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming-00 (Ted Lemon, 20m) Slides: Stuart Cheshire: Has been leaning more about the Thread Group (See ). They are doing good work wrt mesh networks. There is industry need for this. One minor correction about discovering all services on the network: This is in fact possible (for devices that implement it correctly) by doing a query for "_services._dns-sd._udp". See "Service Type Enumeration" in Kerry Lynn, Verizon: There needs to be a user model articulated before we do this work. Andrew Sullivan: It seems like we are throwing out some use cases in order to simplify. Ted: Approach I am proposing is very pared down. Ralph Droms: ?? Ted Lemon: not considered yet. Would like to hear your thoughts because you have more experience. Ray: Not quite ready for adoption. Please send feedback to Ted. ---- Ray: Asking Daniel the state of his naming documents. Daniel Migault: I don't think they are dead. ---- Terry Manderson, reporting on DNSOP review of ".homenet" name: 1. Name could be added to RFC 6761 Special-Use Domain Name registry 2. This could include an insecure delegation from the root zone 3. There is no IETF process for requesting an insecure delegation from the root zone Wesley Hardaker: What would the secure delegations look like? Would there be a name server record and what would it point to? Terry: Yes, there would be a name server record. Ted Lemon: There are other cases where we have bad stuff? Should we try to solve more things at this time? Mark: Ted are you trying to raise the point that it's not just us? Ted: No. Do what we're doing but have a separate case in dnsops where we try to solve more. But this is a hard problem and Terry said he doesn't have an answer to that problem. Paul Hoffman: Please don't do nothing. If you want something to happen, consider new working group. dnsops has already failed. Jari Arkko: Need to be clear on implications of requirements. Make sensible choices. Much of this is out of scope of dnsops. Mark Townsley: We are repeating the discussion from last meeting. We decided we wanted to try to take the harder route. What is different? There have been painful discussions. Andrew Sullivan: The WG is not in charge. This is a IETF document. AD is asking "Do you really want to go to IETF last call?" Mark: Consensus of the WG was clear last time. And this time we are saying the same thing. Ray: Is there an opportunity to publish in a way where we are not locked in to the decision? Terry: Possible. We are in a fluid state. Ray: It's important that we get a name reserved. Ralph Droms: Things have changed since last time. There has been dnsops and other reviews which this WG may want to consider. Ted Lemon: Is it generally understood that regardless of outcome of discussion we ned to have discussion with IANA? Andrew Sullivan: Not as chair of IAB. There is no appetite to re-open existing agreement. They may ask that we give something up if we re-open this. Not sure we want the result of what we are asking for. MOU has effectively been negotiated away from what it actually says. Stuart Cheshire: The goal was for the namespace to have special properties and for it to be recorded in a place where those special properties could be codified. Terry: More discussion will happen this week. Will send notes to the list that were used as talking points.