[Sorry for belated reply, I was on vacations]
Thank you Samita for your review and thank you Christian and Ted for your replies
-éric
On 13/02/2020, 19:37, "last-call on behalf of Christian Huitema" <last-call-bounces@xxxxxxxx on behalf of huitema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Thanks for the review, Samita. We will try to add some precisions about
IoT devices in the next version of the draft.
On 2/13/2020 9:31 AM, Samita Chakrabarti via Datatracker wrote:
> Reviewer: Samita Chakrabarti
> Review result: Ready with Nits
>
> I have reviewed draft-ietf-dnssd-prireq-04.
>
> The document is informative and clear with a few editorial nits on section 4.1
> through 4.3.
>
> I have reviewed from the IoT devices perspective and most likely for the
> consumer devices that might be present in the public network and are using
> shared network technologies (wireless or wired). The threat model are
> applicable to them. Section 3.1 describes implications for wearable and server
> related privacy issue. Perhaps a small paragraph might be added in this
> section or in the introduction calling out possible privacy and security
> threats on personal IoT devices in the public places ( that might act as a
> dns-sd client).
>
> At the same time, considering limited processing capabilities, battery saving
> concern considerations, privacy related extra processing of messages from the
> dns-sd server should not be mandated for the IoT devices. Depending on the
> device capabilities, the feature can be configurable and the user can turn
> on/off at their need; additionally some iot devices may not care about the
> privacy at all.
>
> So, a few additional lines on IoT implications for the threat model and yet
> flexibility of implementation of the dns-sd IOT client may be mentioned in the
> document to clarify the IoT devices in the shared wireless/wired medium.
>
>
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
