Subject: [homenet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-homenet-simple-naming-02.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2018 13:38:29 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Home Networking WG of the IETF.

        Title           : Simple Homenet Naming and Service Discovery Architecture
        Authors         : Ted Lemon
                          Daniel Migault
                          Stuart Cheshire
	Filename        : draft-ietf-homenet-simple-naming-02.txt
	Pages           : 15
	Date            : 2018-07-02

Abstract:
   This document describes how names are published and resolved on
   homenets, and how hosts are configured to use these names to discover
   services on homenets.  It presents the complete architecture, and
   describes a simple subset of that architecture that can be used in
   low-cost homenet routers.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-homenet-simple-naming/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-homenet-simple-naming-02
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-homenet-simple-naming-02

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-homenet-simple-naming-02

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2018 16:43:10 -0700

One thing that confuses me reading this is where (if any) is the 
"caching resolver" expected
to reside. in section 2.2, last bullet it makes mention of an ISP 
resolver, but it's not clear whether
that resolver is the same as the homenet resolver. if it's not that 
resolver, maybe it would be better
to defer that discussion somehow? that is, say that it can happen, but 
defer how it might happen
until later.

nit: you should move the terminology section up at least one section.

I think this draft says that each homenet router can implement the 
naming functionality. how do they
negotiate who is authoritative? If it's in another document, it might be 
nice to call that out.

I'm not groking why this requires the use of ULA's for v6. It doesn't 
seem to require that ipv4 use
rfc 1918 addresses? why does the naming function care which address 
space an address is in?
what if i don't want to use ULA's?

In section 6, it says that request are sent to the local resolver which 
is either a caching resolver
or a proxy. Does that imply that the caching resolver cannot be 
authoritative too? I don't think
that's what you mean, but it's sort of confusing. Some ascii art might 
be helpful to show the
topology possibilities

thanks,

Mike

On 07/02/2018 01:38 PM, [email-masked] wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> homenet mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2018 17:10:29 -0700

If every homenet has a local.arpa, then with mobility (eg, my phone) 
will possibly get
confused by the currently attached homenet's naming, and my "home" 
homenet's naming.
Say, for example, i try to reference (explicitly, implicitly) 
printer.local.arpa and i'm at, oh say,
my neighbor's house. it seems that i could really easily accidentally 
chose my neighbor's printer
which has the same name as my printer. That could possibly be a pretty 
bad thing.

I don't think i've seen this addressed? If not, maybe each homenet 
naming domain should
have some cryptographically random and unique prefix for .local.arpa?

Mike

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2018 20:19:10 -0400

Hm, I think that’s mentioned explicitly in the document  I agree that
that’s a possible solution.  Let me know if you want to work on a draft.

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2018 20:21:48 -0400

I didn’t get all the updates I wanted to into this version. A lot of the
issues you mention here were discussed in my presentation in London. Will
you be in Montreal?

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2018 11:16:20 -0700

On 07/02/2018 05:21 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> I didn’t get all the updates I wanted to into this version. A lot of 
> the issues you mention here were discussed in my presentation in 
> London. Will you be in Montreal?

No.

Mike
>
> On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 7:43 PM Michael Thomas <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>     On 07/02/2018 01:38 PM, [email-masked]
>     <mailto:[email-masked]> wrote:
>     > until the htmlized version and diff are available at
>     tools.ietf.org <http://tools.ietf.org>.
>     >
>     > [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
>     [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2018 11:21:21 -0700

> that’s a possible solution.  Let me know if you want to work on a draft.

Can you tell me where? I'm not seeing it?

Mike
>
> On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 8:10 PM Michael Thomas <[email-masked]

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2018 15:44:02 -0400

It's mentioned in section 10.   I mentioned this more explicitly in the old
homenet naming architecture document.   Here:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lemon-homenet-naming-architecture-01#section-4.6

On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 2:21 PM, Michael Thomas <[email-masked]> wrote:

> homenet mailing [email-masked]://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
>
>
>

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2018 15:44:58 -0400

That's too bad.   We're going to do a work session on the document, so it
would be helpful if you could do a sweep through it after this to make sure
that all your issues got resolved.   Thanks for reviewing and commenting in
any case.   If you can attend online, that might be worthwhile.

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2018 13:30:17 -0700

On 07/03/2018 12:44 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> That's too bad.   We're going to do a work session on the document, so 
> it would be helpful if you could do a sweep through it after this to 
> make sure that all your issues got resolved.   Thanks for reviewing 
> and commenting in any case. If you can attend online, that might be 
> worthwhile.

My biggest problem is that I don't have a very clear idea of how this 
all fits together. Maybe i'm completely dense and  should get it, but 
i've also been out in the wilderness for a long time and my tracking of 
the progress is here is tenuous at best, which might mean i'm not alone.

Like i said, i'm a fan of ascii art, and love ladder diagrams. I know 
they're a pain, but they're really helpful, imo.

Mike

>
> On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 2:16 PM, Michael Thomas <[email-masked] 
>>     I didn’t get all the updates I wanted to into this version. A lot
>>     of the issues you mention here were discussed in my presentation
>>     in London. Will you be in Montreal?
>
>     No.
>
>     Mike
>
>>
>>         <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-homenet-simple-naming/>
>>         >
>>         <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-homenet-simple-naming-02>
>>         >
>>         <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-homenet-simple-naming-02>
>>         >
>>         <https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-homenet-simple-naming-02>
>>         >
>>         >
>>         <ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/>
>>         >
>>         <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet>
>>
>>
>>         <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet>
>>
>>
>>
>>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet>
>
>     _______________________________________________ homenet mailing
>     list [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet> 
>

---

From: Juliusz Chroboczek <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2018 22:37:59 +0200

> My biggest problem is that I don't have a very clear idea of how this all fits
> together.

Same here.

As I mentioned at the microphone in London, there's a lot of moving pieces
here, and everybody would feel much more comfortable if

  1. we could have a look at Ted's implementation; and
  2. somebody could produce an independent reimplementation.

That's what we did for HNCP back then (Markus, Steven and Pierre published
their implementation, and then I did an independent reimplementation), and
I believe it helped to put everyone at ease.

-- Juliusz