DNS-Based Service Discovery (DNS-SD) Privacy and Security Requirements
draft-ietf-dnssd-prireq-08
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2020-09-08
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2020-08-17
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2020-04-15
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2020-03-18
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2020-03-18
|
08 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2020-03-18
|
08 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2020-03-18
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IANA Actions from In Progress |
2020-03-18
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2020-03-18
|
08 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2020-03-18
|
08 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2020-03-18
|
08 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2020-03-18
|
08 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
2020-03-18
|
08 | Éric Vyncke | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup |
2020-03-12
|
08 | Christian Huitema | New version available: draft-ietf-dnssd-prireq-08.txt |
2020-03-12
|
08 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Christian Huitema) |
2020-03-12
|
08 | Christian Huitema | Uploaded new revision |
2020-03-11
|
07 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2020-03-11
|
07 | Henrik Levkowetz | Corrected the document rev. |
2020-03-10
|
07 | Christian Huitema | New version available: draft-ietf-dnssd-prireq-07.txt (Was erroneously uploaded as a second -05) |
2020-03-10
|
05 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Christian Huitema) |
2020-03-10
|
05 | Christian Huitema | Uploaded new revision |
2020-03-09
|
04 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2020-03-09
|
06 | Christian Huitema | New version available: draft-ietf-dnssd-prireq-06.txt (Was erroneously uploaded as a second -04) |
2020-03-09
|
04 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Christian Huitema) |
2020-03-09
|
04 | Christian Huitema | Uploaded new revision |
2020-03-05
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2020-03-04
|
05 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot comment] Section 1 connected to the same network. Consider for example a traveler wanting to upload pictures from a phone to a … [Ballot comment] Section 1 connected to the same network. Consider for example a traveler wanting to upload pictures from a phone to a laptop when connected to the Wi-Fi network of an Internet cafe, or two travelers who want to [both devices are on the same Wi-Fi, right?] Disclosing Information In this document "disclosing information" is also focused on disclosure by data conveyed via messages on the service discovery protocol layer. This is generic non-identity but still potentially sensitive data, right? Section 3.2 kinds of means for making DNS-SD resource records available. These means comprise but are not limited to mDNS [RFC6762], DNS servers ([RFC1033] [RFC1034], [RFC1035]), e.g. using SRP [I-D.ietf-dnssd-srp], and multi-link [RFC7558] networks. nit: this "e.g." seems out of place. Section 3.2.2 There is, of course, also no authentication requirement to claim a particular instance name, so an active attacker can provide resources that claim to be Alice's but are not. Section 3.3.2 This sort of problem frequently ends up with a third-party "trusted introducer", though it's not clear that mentioning this in the document will add value. 3.4.2 I'm given to understand that for many radio technologies, multicast is both effectively broadcast and has specific spectrum requirements/properties that make it especially scarce, compared to unicast spectrum. |
2020-03-04
|
05 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benjamin Kaduk |
2020-03-04
|
05 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
2020-03-04
|
05 | Adam Roach | [Ballot comment] Section 3.2: > Information conveyed via multicast messages can be > obtained by an on-link attacker, while unicast messages are only > available … [Ballot comment] Section 3.2: > Information conveyed via multicast messages can be > obtained by an on-link attacker, while unicast messages are only > available to MITM attackers. I don’t think this is accurate. Given that many of the environments under consideration (e.g., airport WiFi) use unencrypted wireless transmission combined with a captive portal. In these cases, an eavesdropper on the same channel can snoop on even unicast traffic without mounting an MITM attack. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- General: The document speaks of randomization of identifiers, including those commonly used by users to identify which services they want to connect to. While the current state of affairs may list a directory such as: • Adam’s iPhone • David’s Google Pixel 3 • Alice’s Laptop (allowing me to select something based on its published name) This document seems to propose a future state where such directories are instead presented as: • {da566203-0320-4604-aa14-f58ae7bea00c} • {6c0952a5-a573-4d92-9d4a-a4bc111a35d8} • {785bed6b-1355-4e7e-ad57-b5ce27e83e56} I find it a bit surprising that this document doesn’t include at least a cursory mention of the difficulty users may have in device rendezvous under such a scheme and potential solutions to such issues (e.g., using RFID or QR codes to provide pairing information). |
2020-03-04
|
05 | Adam Roach | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adam Roach |
2020-03-04
|
05 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2020-03-04
|
05 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot comment] Thanks for this document. Kuddos on the amazing ASCII art. ** Section 3.1.1. Per “Identifying devices leads to identifying people, either just for … [Ballot comment] Thanks for this document. Kuddos on the amazing ASCII art. ** Section 3.1.1. Per “Identifying devices leads to identifying people, either just for tracking people or as a preliminary to targeted attacks.”, this didn’t parse for me and the intent of the “just for tracking people” wasn’t clear. Is the following the intent: “Identifying devices can lead to identifying people, either for surveillance of these individuals in the physical world or as a preliminary step for a targeted cyber attack.” ** Section 3.1.2. Per “The requirement in that scenario is that the discovery activity should not disclose the identify of either the client or the server”, is something stronger more desirable? For example, is there any desire to thwart the discovery of the “business and social interactions” between the device owners? ** Section 3.1.3 It seems as if all of the same challenges of Section 3.1.1 “identifying people” and using the information for a “targeted attack” apply here too (but it’s said in a different way). Is it worth link the same issues across scenarios? ** Section 3.2. Per “Information conveyed via multicast messages can be obtained by an on-link attacker, while unicast messages are only available to MITM attackers.”, please clarify why a passive on-link attacker can’t see the unicast messages? ** Section 3.2.5. Per “This combination of services and attributes will often be sufficient to identify the version of the software running on a device”, makes sense. Is it worth adding that with this information and traffic analysis, you might also be able to get identity (track people). |
2020-03-04
|
05 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw |
2020-03-04
|
05 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot comment] I was missing our old friends Alice and Bob in 3.1, but then saw that they return in later sections. It might be … [Ballot comment] I was missing our old friends Alice and Bob in 3.1, but then saw that they return in later sections. It might be good to name the example users consistently. |
2020-03-04
|
05 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2020-03-03
|
05 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2020-03-03
|
05 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov |
2020-03-02
|
05 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot comment] nit sec 2: "on-link An on-link attacker is [...]; thus, the external attacker is in the same multicast domain." s/external … [Ballot comment] nit sec 2: "on-link An on-link attacker is [...]; thus, the external attacker is in the same multicast domain." s/external attacker/on-link attacker/ I agree with Barry that at least RFC6763 and RFC7558 should be normative references. Also thanks for the quick reply to the TSV-ART review (and thanks Tommy for the review!)! |
2020-03-02
|
05 | Mirja Kühlewind | Ballot comment text updated for Mirja Kühlewind |
2020-02-27
|
05 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot comment] nit sec 2: "on-link An on-link attacker is [...]; thus, the external attacker is in the same multicast domain." s/external … |
2020-02-27
|
05 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
2020-02-25
|
05 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] It’s useful to have this analysis; thanks. Just some editorial comments below. Please consider them; none needs any explicit response. Please take specific … [Ballot comment] It’s useful to have this analysis; thanks. Just some editorial comments below. Please consider them; none needs any explicit response. Please take specific note of the last one, about the references. General: “i.e.” and “e.g.” always need a comma after them. — Section 1 — There are cases when nodes connected to a network want to provide or consume services without exposing their identity to the other parties Nit: “their identities” (or “a node… wants… its identity”) Consider for example a traveler Nit: “Consider, for example, a traveler” Disclosing Information In this document "disclosing information" is also focused on disclosure by data conveyed via messages on the service discovery protocol layer. Do you mean “disclosure of data” (not “by”)? — Section 2 — All these attackers can either be passive, i.e. they just listen to network traffic they have access to, or active, i.e. they additionally can craft and send (malicious) packets. Style: You decide, of course, but I find this easier to read with parentheses, rather than “i.e.”s: SUGGEST All these attackers can either be passive (they just listen to network traffic they have access to) or active (they additionally can craft and send malicious packets). END on-link An on-link attacker is on the same network link as victim devices engaging in service discovery; thus, the external attacker is in the same multicast domain. The second line should say “on-link attacker”. MITM A Man in the Middle (MITM) attacker either controls (parts of) a network link or can trick two parties to send traffic via him; Nit: “Man-in-the-Middle” needs hyphens when it modifies “attacker”. Style: I know that “him” matches “Man”, so maybe we should leave it as is. Still, it jarred me. I would say “via the attacker.” — Section 3.1.1 — I love the ASCII-art stick figures. :-) just for tracking people or as a preliminary to targeted attacks. “preliminary” isn’t a noun. Maybe “preliminary step”, or maybe “preamble”? Or you could remove “as a”, and it would work. Yes, I think the last is the best fix here. — Section 3.1.2 — such as for example an airport's lounge. Nit: “for example” needs to be set off with commas before and after it. — Section 3.1.3 — to further attacks, from theft to device specific hacking. Nit: hyphenate “device-specific”. "fingerprint" of the person, allowing identification. Style: I would say “facilitating identification”, or maybe “risking identification”. — Section 3.2 — This is mainly relevant for unicast based discovery Nit: hyphenate “unicast-based”. — Section 3.2.4 — o Some attributes like the paper size available in a printer, Fruit flies like a banana? The attributes are not paticularly fond of anything: “Some attributes, such as the paper size available in a printer,” Combinations of attributes have more information power than specific attributes Style: I would say, “than individual attributes” Information contained in TXT records does not only breach privacy Nit: make it “…records not only breaches privacy” Further, TXT records often contain version information about services allowing potential attackers You need a comma after “services” — otherwise, the meaning isn’t quite as you want it. — Section 3.2.5 — An argument is sometimes made that devices providing services can be identified by observing the local traffic, and that trying to hide the presence of the service is futile. However, Given what you say below this, I think it would help to emphasize the point here, so may I suggest this?: NEW An argument is sometimes made that devices providing services can be identified by observing the local traffic, and that trying to hide the presence of the service is futile. However, there are good reasons for the doscovery service layer to avoid unnecessary exposure: END — Section 3.2.6 — services, such as for example some private messaging services. “such as” already means “for example”, so you don’t need both. I would just remove “for example”. — Section 3.4.1 — can perform, the proxy may have some way to wake the device, as implied in RFC6762 [RFC6762] 6762 is 50 pages-ish; do you mind adding a section to the citation to help the reader find the implication? — Section 3.4.2 — Further it may cause an unnecessary level of power consumption which is particularly problematic Nit: this needs a comma after “further” and another after “consumption”. unauthorized observers, while also managing to do that efficiently. You’re missing an antecedent to “that”. I think you need to say, “to do its job efficiently,” or something like that. — Section 3.4.3 — establishment requires active participation of the user, such as entering a password or PIN. I submit that “clicking OK” is also active participation. Maybe “more significant participation” is better? — Section 4 — lead to a solution that does not transmit privacy violating DNS-SD Nit: hyphenate “privacy-violating”. mechanisms should be used on deeper layer network protocols and on how to actually connect to services in a privacy preserving way, Nit: hyphenate “deeper-layer” and “privacy-preserving”. — Section 4.2 — 4. Avoid disclosure of information about the services they offer to unauthorized clients. This sounds like it’s talking about services that they offer to unauthorized clients. I don’t actually think readers will misunderstand it, but they might trip over it. Maybe move “to unauthorized clients” after “disclosure”? That way, you can make the same change in bullet 3 and keep them parallel and clear. — Section 4.3 — Further, it would increase power consumption which is critical for IoT devices. Increased power consumption isn’t what’s critical; just the opposite. Maybe “which is damaging to IoT devices.” — Section 7 — Do with this comment what you will: I’m one who believes that Informational documents do have Normative References. Those are the references that are critical to the understanding of the document. Clearly, the DNSSD and mDNS documents are in that category, and I think there are others. You needn’t reply on this, and you needn’t do it if you disagree, but I think it would be best to identify the key documents that readers of this need to be familiar with, and move them into Normative References. |
2020-02-25
|
05 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2020-02-21
|
05 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2020-02-21
|
05 | Éric Vyncke | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2020-03-05 |
2020-02-21
|
05 | Éric Vyncke | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup |
2020-02-21
|
05 | Éric Vyncke | Ballot has been issued |
2020-02-21
|
05 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke |
2020-02-21
|
05 | Éric Vyncke | Created "Approve" ballot |
2020-02-21
|
05 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2020-02-21
|
05 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2020-02-21
|
05 | Daniel Kaiser | New version available: draft-ietf-dnssd-prireq-05.txt |
2020-02-21
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-02-21
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Daniel Kaiser , Christian Huitema |
2020-02-21
|
05 | Daniel Kaiser | Uploaded new revision |
2020-02-20
|
04 | Éric Vyncke | Ballot writeup was changed |
2020-02-20
|
04 | Éric Vyncke | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2020-02-13
|
04 | Samita Chakrabarti | Request for Last Call review by IOTDIR Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Samita Chakrabarti. Sent review to list. |
2020-02-13
|
04 | Samita Chakrabarti | Assignment of request for Last Call review by IOTDIR to Ralph Droms was withdrawn |
2020-02-13
|
04 | Samita Chakrabarti | Request for Last Call review by IOTDIR is assigned to Samita Chakrabarti |
2020-02-13
|
04 | Samita Chakrabarti | Request for Last Call review by IOTDIR is assigned to Samita Chakrabarti |
2020-02-13
|
04 | Éric Vyncke | Addressing Last Call reviews |
2020-02-13
|
04 | Éric Vyncke | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised I-D Needed from Waiting for Writeup |
2020-02-12
|
04 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2020-02-10
|
04 | Tianran Zhou | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Tianran Zhou. Sent review to list. |
2020-02-07
|
04 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2020-02-07
|
04 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-dnssd-prireq-04, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-dnssd-prireq-04, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions. While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object. If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal Senior IANA Services Specialist |
2020-02-07
|
04 | Robert Sparks | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Robert Sparks. Sent review to list. |
2020-02-07
|
04 | Robert Sparks | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Robert Sparks. Sent review to list. |
2020-02-06
|
04 | Tommy Pauly | Request for Last Call review by TSVART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Tommy Pauly. Sent review to list. |
2020-02-03
|
04 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Tianran Zhou |
2020-02-03
|
04 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Tianran Zhou |
2020-02-03
|
04 | Wesley Eddy | Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to Tommy Pauly |
2020-02-03
|
04 | Wesley Eddy | Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to Tommy Pauly |
2020-01-31
|
04 | Ari Keränen | Request for Last Call review by IOTDIR is assigned to Ralph Droms |
2020-01-31
|
04 | Ari Keränen | Request for Last Call review by IOTDIR is assigned to Ralph Droms |
2020-01-30
|
04 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Robert Sparks |
2020-01-30
|
04 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Robert Sparks |
2020-01-30
|
04 | Bob Halley | Request for Last Call review by INTDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Bob Halley. Sent review to list. |
2020-01-30
|
04 | Bernie Volz | Request for Last Call review by INTDIR is assigned to Bob Halley |
2020-01-30
|
04 | Bernie Volz | Request for Last Call review by INTDIR is assigned to Bob Halley |
2020-01-30
|
04 | Tero Kivinen | Closed request for Last Call review by SECDIR with state 'Withdrawn' |
2020-01-30
|
04 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Robert Sparks |
2020-01-30
|
04 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Robert Sparks |
2020-01-30
|
04 | Tero Kivinen | Assignment of request for Last Call review by SECDIR to Yaron Sheffer was withdrawn |
2020-01-30
|
04 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Yaron Sheffer |
2020-01-30
|
04 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Yaron Sheffer |
2020-01-29
|
04 | Carlos Pignataro | Assignment of request for Last Call review by INTDIR to Carlos Pignataro was rejected |
2020-01-29
|
04 | Bernie Volz | Request for Last Call review by INTDIR is assigned to Carlos Pignataro |
2020-01-29
|
04 | Bernie Volz | Request for Last Call review by INTDIR is assigned to Carlos Pignataro |
2020-01-29
|
04 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2020-01-29
|
04 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2020-02-12): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: dnssd-chairs@ietf.org, dnssd@ietf.org, David Schinazi , dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com, … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2020-02-12): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: dnssd-chairs@ietf.org, dnssd@ietf.org, David Schinazi , dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com, evyncke@cisco.com, draft-ietf-dnssd-prireq@ietf.org Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (DNS-SD Privacy and Security Requirements) to Informational RFC The IESG has received a request from the Extensions for Scalable DNS Service Discovery WG (dnssd) to consider the following document: - 'DNS-SD Privacy and Security Requirements' as Informational RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2020-02-12. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract DNS-SD (DNS Service Discovery) normally discloses information about devices offering and requesting services. This information includes host names, network parameters, and possibly a further description of the corresponding service instance. Especially when mobile devices engage in DNS Service Discovery at a public hotspot, serious privacy problems arise. We analyze the requirements of a privacy respecting discovery service. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnssd-prireq/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnssd-prireq/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2020-01-29
|
04 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2020-01-29
|
04 | Éric Vyncke | Requested Last Call review by INTDIR |
2020-01-29
|
04 | Éric Vyncke | Requested Last Call review by IOTDIR |
2020-01-29
|
04 | Éric Vyncke | Last call was requested |
2020-01-29
|
04 | Éric Vyncke | Last call announcement was generated |
2020-01-29
|
04 | Éric Vyncke | Ballot writeup was generated |
2020-01-29
|
04 | Éric Vyncke | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2020-01-29
|
04 | Éric Vyncke | Ballot approval text was generated |
2020-01-28
|
04 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2020-01-28
|
04 | Christian Huitema | New version available: draft-ietf-dnssd-prireq-04.txt |
2020-01-28
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-01-28
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Daniel Kaiser , Christian Huitema |
2020-01-28
|
04 | Christian Huitema | Uploaded new revision |
2020-01-23
|
03 | Éric Vyncke | Sent some review comments to the authors. |
2020-01-23
|
03 | Éric Vyncke | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation |
2020-01-16
|
03 | Éric Vyncke | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2020-01-16
|
03 | David Schinazi | (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? … (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Informational, which is natural for a Privacy and Security Requirements document. It is indicated in the title page header. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary: This document discusses how current DNSSD protocols can leak users' private information. It goes into detail on some specific use-cases that would benefit from improved privacy and security. This document is meant as guidelines that the DNSSD working group will follow when defining a standard for privacy-preserving service discovery. Working Group Summary: There was controversy in how to build a solution to these privacy concerns, and the working group therefore chose to start with writing a requirements document, which is this draft. This draft was not controversial in the working group. Document Quality: This document only discusses requirements, and does so pretty well. Personnel: David Schinazi is the Document Shepherd (and co-chair of the WG); Eric Vyncke is the Responsible Area Director. (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. As WG chair I have followed the draft through its development, and am thus familiar with it. I have read the final version of the document and am satisfied that it is ready for publication. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No concerns, the document has been reviewed by many key actors in the WG. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. No specific review required. This was discussed in multiple DNSSD WG sessions where we invited privacy-focused IETF attendees. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. No concerns. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? Yes. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnssd/GmFGjClLPI4fbtFDs1NejVKapWg (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPR disclosures on this draft. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? WG consensus is strong. From the sense of the room at IETF 106, the WG as a whole understands and supports this work. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No discontent about this draft has been expressed. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. I ran idnits myself, no issues were found. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. None. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? None. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. None. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. None. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126). This draft does not require any IANA action. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. None. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc. Not applicable. (20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342? Not applicable. |
2020-01-16
|
03 | David Schinazi | Responsible AD changed to Éric Vyncke |
2020-01-16
|
03 | David Schinazi | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from In WG Last Call |
2020-01-16
|
03 | David Schinazi | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
2020-01-16
|
03 | David Schinazi | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2020-01-16
|
03 | David Schinazi | (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? … (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Informational, which is natural for a Privacy and Security Requirements document. It is indicated in the title page header. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary: This document discusses how current DNSSD protocols can leak users' private information. It goes into detail on some specific use-cases that would benefit from improved privacy and security. This document is meant as guidelines that the DNSSD working group will follow when defining a standard for privacy-preserving service discovery. Working Group Summary: There was controversy in how to build a solution to these privacy concerns, and the working group therefore chose to start with writing a requirements document, which is this draft. This draft was not controversial in the working group. Document Quality: This document only discusses requirements, and does so pretty well. Personnel: David Schinazi is the Document Shepherd (and co-chair of the WG); Eric Vyncke is the Responsible Area Director. (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. As WG chair I have followed the draft through its development, and am thus familiar with it. I have read the final version of the document and am satisfied that it is ready for publication. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No concerns, the document has been reviewed by many key actors in the WG. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. No specific review required. This was discussed in multiple DNSSD WG sessions where we invited privacy-focused IETF attendees. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. No concerns. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? Yes. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnssd/GmFGjClLPI4fbtFDs1NejVKapWg (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPR disclosures on this draft. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? WG consensus is strong. From the sense of the room at IETF 106, the WG as a whole understands and supports this work. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No discontent about this draft has been expressed. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. I ran idnits myself, no issues were found. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. None. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? None. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. None. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. None. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126). This draft does not require any IANA action. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. None. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc. Not applicable. (20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342? Not applicable. |
2020-01-06
|
03 | David Schinazi | Notification list changed to David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com> |
2020-01-06
|
03 | David Schinazi | Document shepherd changed to David Schinazi |
2020-01-06
|
03 | David Schinazi | Intended Status changed to Informational from None |
2019-12-20
|
03 | Daniel Kaiser | New version available: draft-ietf-dnssd-prireq-03.txt |
2019-12-20
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-12-20
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Daniel Kaiser , Christian Huitema |
2019-12-20
|
03 | Daniel Kaiser | Uploaded new revision |
2019-11-04
|
02 | David Schinazi | Since there was interest in publishing the DNSSD Privacy Requirements work at our latest DNSSD face-to-face meeting, we're starting a Working Group Last Call to … Since there was interest in publishing the DNSSD Privacy Requirements work at our latest DNSSD face-to-face meeting, we're starting a Working Group Last Call to see if we have consensus to advance the document. The working group last call will last for 3 weeks until 2019-22-25, and we will discuss it during the DNSSD meeting at IETF 106 in Singapore. We invite members of the community to read the latest draft and comment on list before our in-person meeting. |
2019-11-04
|
02 | David Schinazi | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2019-07-25
|
02 | Christian Huitema | New version available: draft-ietf-dnssd-prireq-02.txt |
2019-07-25
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-07-25
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Daniel Kaiser , Christian Huitema |
2019-07-25
|
02 | Christian Huitema | Uploaded new revision |
2019-07-25
|
01 | Christian Huitema | New version available: draft-ietf-dnssd-prireq-01.txt |
2019-07-25
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-07-25
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Christian Huitema , dnssd-chairs@ietf.org |
2019-07-25
|
01 | Christian Huitema | Uploaded new revision |
2019-04-03
|
00 | (System) | Document has expired |
2018-09-30
|
00 | David Schinazi | This document now replaces draft-huitema-dnssd-prireq instead of None |
2018-09-30
|
00 | Christian Huitema | New version available: draft-ietf-dnssd-prireq-00.txt |
2018-09-30
|
00 | (System) | WG -00 approved |
2018-09-30
|
00 | Christian Huitema | Set submitter to "Christian Huitema ", replaces to draft-huitema-dnssd-prireq and sent approval email to group chairs: dnssd-chairs@ietf.org |
2018-09-30
|
00 | Christian Huitema | Uploaded new revision |