Just to keep the WG up-to date with our planes. We discussed last Friday among other aspects: * the title of the draft: It is not the first time but we thought that "Simple Provisioning of Public Names for Residential Networks" described better what we were doing. * the security consideration section where we removed a lot of text related to the amplification attack associated to the use of the DNS protocols. Such attacks are largely limited by the use of TLS. We also strongly recommended the use of TLS 1.3. * the provisioning parameters of the HNA as well as the format used to present them. * validation of reverse zone update by the ISP. When no distribution mechanisms are provided by the ISP to configure ( and authenticate ) the HNA, we describe how a request for the reverse zone may be considered as legitimate based on the IP used. For the DHCP option, we also discussed the use of certificates as opposed to a raw key and we will update the draft accordingly.
My understanding is that the current draft is close to be finalized and synced with Ray's implementation. Then we will synched the DHCP option draft. We believe this could be finalized before mid-december. Yours, Daniel On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 2:03 PM Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> wrote: > > Eric Vyncke \(evyncke\) <evyncke=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > Daniel, thank you for the update on this draft. > > May the WG expect a revised I-D (and possibly one for the DHCPv6 > draft) in the coming days? > > Hi, I posted a revised document, but there are still issues that I don't > expect to work out until Ray and I put his code through some more testing. > > -- > Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) > Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide > > > > > -- Daniel Migault Ericsson
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
