Internet Engineering Task Force 100, 13 Nov 2017

Previous Meeting Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: IETF100-HOMENET-20171113-1550

Description

HOMENET meeting session at IETF100
2017/11/13 1550

https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/100/proceedings/

A

We're gonna start a minute or two: we just let people finish their coffee for another. Second,.

B

Could anybody in the back, please close the doors on your way out.

A

For those expired to say he wants to go to Mike and talk about him. We can have little eyes but come back to the.

B

Alrighty, then, shall we we are here for the home met at IETF 100 as Ray is leaving us and Stephan and Barbara are taking over.

B

Anyway, so those let's see Steven, put together the slides and told me to talk to them so I hope. There's no surprises here. This is the agenda. Does anyone have a comment on the agenda and so, let's see 4-minute taking by the way, I think Tim and Michael Abramson is doing jabber and thank you very much, gentlemen. That is much appreciated.

B

Okay, so no comments on the agenda.

B

Ether pad would be lovely, I think I've become very used to it.

B

There's the administrivia and so here's status of various and sundry drafts. We do have the W GL see on the babble profile Terry. Why are you there I'm.

C

Here, for one reason, and that's to at the end of the administrivia thank ray for all of his efforts over the last many years for HomeNet, as co-chair, I, really appreciate it, and thank you very much for your efforts. If everyone doesn't realize this is going to be raised last HomeNet session. After this, he will be officially stepping down. So if I could get everyone to say, thank you to write in the usual manner. Please.

C

B

Thank You Terry appreciate that I would have remembered to thank right yeah. That was good okay, um so we do have that we have the HomeNet simple home net, naming which we just adopted as a working group draft in the in Prague, and then there is the home net dot 14, which hopefully will be published at some point um and then there's all these expired drafts which, since they're expired, there's, presumably nothing to talk about. But if you have something to talk about, we can talk about it at the end.

B

If there's any time remaining, unless you really really want to talk about it, and in which case you should let us know, alrighty. Oh.

B

That's all the slides, hmm that's all the chair, slides, yes, which then brings us to our first presenter. Geordi I do believe you're up. First.

D

Okay, so I I, somehow voluntary, to to work a little bit on this I am going I, think it's about tennis lights, I'm going to be, or try to be very, very quick with the slides, probably about five minutes. So we have more time for discussion which, which I think it's good. What we really need in this topic.

D

Let me explain the history about how how this come here. I I submitted a draft in in the ITF in Chicago for updating RFC 7080 for my basic idea. That time was to include the new transition protocols, because the actual document only supports six or D and DS Lite, and while we we are knitting in in the market, we are knitting support for ipv6, only mekinese like map or forces for ex-lap, and so on. So I I really thought that we need to include them in in the document.

D

There was some discussion at that time. That document was adopted as a working group item, but then in right before crack, there was some pushback from the working group and one of the things that I included in that document was supporting hm CP. Okay, so that's that's the reason we have this here.

D

Basically, what happened is that after the pragma team, it seems we reach it more or less the decision that we are not going to date, RFC 1784 and instead of that is being suggested that we have a specific document for the new transition mechanism, which somehow will work in parallel, which RFC 7080 for forever fees are, of course, and and so on, moving okay.

D

Now so this is. This is what what I think will happen. It will depend on the consensus on this week and this document, which is FC 1784, that's B's transition, October 7 is 0-1. I am still calling it RFC 1784, just just as a placeholder, because we don't know if the working group adopts its. What will be the final name, but basically this document no longer contains a suit or mast or anything like that.

D

Support for a change and CP and I have a single sentence that that say, would you have in the screen so basically saying if you need support for multiple cascaded routers, you need to look into each NCP, then I organized at the panel in the a pinic 44 in Taichung in September, so it was two months ago. In this panel we got I invited globally to all the sea vendors that want to participate. Unfortunately, I got only three participants, which was good anyway, because we could not handle probably eight or ten, but we got d-link.

D

I think this is not working very well. What is the presenter? Okay, yeah.

D

Okay, so no battery, so we got the link, we got NEC and we got cycle. I. Think NAC was not able to make this meeting but I think dealing said. Ric hunts live over there. So probably you have some questions they can answer also, or he can answer directly.

D

Nac promised it to be in the in the Java or something or participate in remotely in that panel. I included a specific question about ComNet support. Okay, if you want to read an article that I write in a picnic block, including a video to the to the panel, you have the link and it's about one hour.

D

Video I think it's quite interesting, but I am trying to summarize- and this is light, the main things related, especially to hominid first question is: there are seas which ipv6 support that, even if they have dhcpv6 prefix delegation, they are actually no don't know or they don't do very well. The allocation of his last sista for two different lands inside the customer network. We know that and it happens even for the guess.

D

Ssid, you have a wireless network, so it works very well for happy before because they are doing that and so on, but for ipv6 they are not doing very well, some do or allow downstream routers, but they don't have support for dynamic routing and the main reason for that is to reduce the risk and even because they are a threat of calls to the Customer Support Center.

D

When you have that dynamic routing right. Another question that we got in the in the panel was maybes too early to have support or to implement HomeNet. Also there were some considerations about how much is the cost. It seems that in regular seas today, it's possible to do that. So it's not a consideration of. We don't have enough hardware, we don't have enough memory or anything like that. The code is there. So that's that's not a problem. We know that in in some open source like open, wrt or really it has been implemented.

D

So so we know that, but we also discuss it that there is maybe a market opportunity for this kind of of technologies, because there are different things happening like the support for faster wireless, like with image, and that may be a good opportunity for hominid as well to be supported.

D

There is also a good advantage there in the sense that the price that customers are paying for better wireless when they had hired their own, see your wireless access point or whatever is growing up, so it means also the margin for the for the vendor. Sis is going up and the main issue that, according to the people in the panel we have right now, is when we have a network span across different hum net routers the device discovery okay, so it it seems that that may be an issue that that we need to to resolve.

D

Then I try to compile some of the comments. I think I take all of them. So excuse me if I miss it anything in the list, one of the inputs and I think that was mine. It was we have a missing opportunity for home net. If we don't go to be six hops and say in the case that document for transition adopted, because we are not going to modify RFC 7080 for we are not actually asking the vendors to support devices, including ComNet.

D

Okay, all we are not asking the ISPs to support those kind of devices.

D

Another question was: if they're from net sees behind the eye, yet ISP see that's a situation which is not very fun, and then there were somebody said there are two possible models. One is friendly ISP model, the ESP has information about the ComNet, including other external links, and then we have my home. My castle model, which is external links, are considered by HCA change CP as untrusted, and the C has no home net topology information.

D

We can use, in that case dhcpv6 preface delegations to connect what kind of devices so they the ISP provided C and the internal C is right in the case of one. Maybe the problem is a price problem. Is there is P not willing to pay? This is my own consideration.

D

Okay, so I am mixing here comments in the list with my own open questions to the group here or it's because is piece, don't understand that the deployment model for ipv6 is not the same as ipv4, because in ipv4 you have multiple Nats and it works and nothing happens and never mind how the user is connecting the root is among them. It will work, but in AP v6 is not going to work. So that's something that we need to consider.

D

It may be a lack of information from the people that is deciding which CPE to to add Kyle, to provide to the customers.

D

Somebody else commented that model 2 is killing home net, so maybe we need to think about that or maybe isn't the other way around, maybe actually model one, the one that is killing home net. So there is a discussion that that we need to have another input was what do we want ComNet to be okay?

D

So we really need to take that decision, because, depending on what we decide, we are going one way or the other, and maybe both of them are broken depending on how how we tackle that some people use the ISP sees as layer 2 and that's, for example, myself I am using that I get from whatever ISP the C and I conclude it in bridge mode and so on, but I'm not really sure how many people is doing that.

D

It could work that if we have model one right, there is some common. Also that probably we believe people is not that smart and actually are smarter than than what we think, if not from net, will sort out automatically those problems. That's that goes the main reason for for home net right.

D

So there is a question that I don't agree, and somebody said typically, the C is serviceable only by the ISP and that's something that may be changed from country to country I, don't know, for example, in US or Canada, but I think in most of the European countries they IP their ISP provide the C, but even for regulation the user has the access to to configure his his C.

D

So that that's also an interesting question: if not getting more common is not getting more common to have a damn see such for example, in Jeep or networks you get their own Ont, and then you have the C afterwards, which is basically what we said before about the layer to see right.

D

If that's the case, the router that provides the ISP, which is the Ont, is not. It is the one that requires the the homme net right, so it's not the wind on T, but there, the router behind the Ont. You have multiple operators.

D

You will use one of those writers only so, for example, I have I got to G port links. Each link will have one Ont, and maybe both operators provide me a real C, which ComNet I will use only one of them or the other one I will use inside my home, but to connect both links. I will use only one good about hybrid routers, for example.

D

I have one main link, which is a Japan link, and this is also question that come in the in the in the panel in Taichung and then I may have other wildlings or maybe a backup which LT okay. So that's also something that that we need to consider.

D

Maybe subnet I believe not. But that's that's an open question. Maybe ComNet is only to be in retail routers, not the ones that provide the SP, but the one that you by in the supermarket I, really think that we are going to see in the next few years. More and more people having multiple links or even multiple eyes, piece for many reasons. I am convinced at about that, so that that should be part of our discussion and I. Think that's the last slide.

D

One comment in the list, I I, think, is very relevant. Maybe what we need to document as a standard is something that supports both models, because we cannot depend on what the ISPs are going to do and yeah. That was the last slide. So I hope this. This is useful for just starting the discussion trying to collect all day all the inputs.

E

Yeah, gentlemen, thanks Jory, this is interesting.

E

So what I've seen people talk about the isp model versus the HomeNet router model? What I generally hear is that they want to actually just manage the home net. So it's not really a home that anymore. It's you know. H NCP isn't really necessary, it's all being done with with management. You know OEM stuff. So to me that doesn't seem I mean I, it's not necessarily wrong for us to talk about it, but it's not clear to me that it's that it's really the same thing as a home net.

E

And aside from that, the other thing that my other observation to this is just that we need to have. We need to get working on actually having real home net routers that we can demonstrate because there's no point in talking about any of this stuff. It's all theoretical and that's kind of it feels like that's where we are right now.

D

Hans, maybe you want to comment something about what you did up to now for home net at the link or I. Don't know just I think I couldn't the opportunity you are here. I. Think it's interesting to get the perspective from a vendor house.

F

Beauty link um to be very honest: LED we don't yet have any homemade deployment and I know there are a lot of I I know: I can I can get. You know open cells from open wrt for the works for our marks and gentleman's.

F

However, the reason why we didn't put the H be put in later us because led some house here today we still have service Coast, talking about very very fundamental ipv6, like I mentioned in AP, need 44 like even after so many years since 2011 yeah, when we first had less v6 day or v6 day. Since then, we keep getting calls asking about question one to another. So I think over reason. Why we didn't put in there is because I don't really see it is about time. Yep.

G

Michael Aaron, so so yeah I need to read up on that thread because I think those two cases or either too simplified or we need to qualify them more I, don't think I think there are more more of these and I I'm, not sure I would carve it this way from like what do you need to make home network so and there there is also in different countries.

G

What the ISP is legally allowed to pull from the home gateway is very different and a special now in Europe with gdpr, which changes everything for and I think all the ice. But this is a big talking point well like what can we either legally get from the home gateway, even if we are managing it?

G

Even if we could get stuff to even have images that remove man and management capabilities, I mean these are all discussion, so I think that those two points are it's less binary than that, and it's also with I think with home that generally, it was about getting a PD.

G

So you were not running a chance EP with the ISP upstream router, but I think here it's talking about an an is being managed home gateway right, okay, so right so then, then you have the the question of the K trust that device okay yeah, because I think there were more deployment cases here anyway, where we would need to discuss that.

H

Vista from Cisco, so it seems to me that we have a chicken-and-egg problem for for deployment. I mean a kind of lack of incentive from vendors to put HomeNet in your routers, and I can understand that. Obviously, it's a burden to have possibly more bugs.

H

So in France, my provider gives me a box I, don't really match in changing that box, but I don't see why that box couldn't implement her net I, don't see the collision between being managed and supporting HTTP and, in my opinion, option. 2 is indeed killing whole net. In fact, because one of the main well I see two use cases main use cases for whole net I have two providers. They provide each provider. Give me one box: I want to plug the two boxes together and I. Want it to work.

H

Just work, so I need those two boxes, not one the two of them to support from net, and maybe it's different in other countries. I, don't know what in France that's Rio and possibly in Europe Hawaii I see it.

H

The second use case is the Wi-Fi extension same thing: I I, don't want to buy to make one Wi-Fi extension I don't want to buy three routers I, don't want to have one si router that is not running a chain CP and then the first agency P and then the second agency I, want to buy one extension and both of them should work with agency P. So really I. Don't think how vendors would ever deploy it in CP if it doesn't become C feature I. Think.

D

That is a question in the back Mike.

I

Hi this is Ryan a concern. I I think maybe there's a bit of a business model problem with the belief that the that any ISP is going to want to facilitate a residential customer using more than one upstream now in certain geographies. There are regulatory requirements that may impede, but I think they want to. They won't really would prefer to have their own CPE and to have everything behind that you know, and part of it is that it reduces customer support. Telephone calls and I'm told that it in North America.

I

At the moment it runs about a hundred and twenty dollars to pick up the phone and say hello, so that's more than the cost of the of the ISP service. So they really want to control the the customer premise box. It's not that you can't get around that sometimes depending on the provider, but they have no incentive to facilitate no business incentive to facilitate a residential customer using more than one upstream. At the same time,.

G

Michael Abramson they here again so, depending on what kind of residential gateway it is. If it's a there are different organizations, doing the standardization CableLabs for about forum and so on, and if they are not talking about this at all, I I think there is very little chance of getting this into volume. Mainstream. That devices that ice, please by N and you know, put in people's homes and have heard figures of you can put the the user can put the modem the DOCSIS modem in bridge mode and run their own devices.

G

How many do this less than one percent? So if we want this as a volume product, it needs to go into the ISP managed device, because from what I can tell more and more users the day you just want or worked in service they just they don't want to go to a store. They just want the ISP to send me something that works. I'll, connect it and everything should just work. It should always be, should just match everything.

G

That's what most users, what had totally hands-off so saying yeah so for volume, deployment, I, think whatever come up with needs to work in in that mindset of I work. However,.

D

I I see more and more cases of people buying a secondary access point or router with wireless and so on and I need to work. Yes, it needs work. Yes, so what I.

G

Fully want this to work, but it needs to be that whatever you go to the shop where you buy it for me Electronics dealer and they are SP equipment, its needs to talk together and that.

D

That will be basically supportive.

G

D

So Michael that will be basically supported both models, making such way that supports whatever is set up by the I speak.

B

Barber stark, AT&T and I'm just here actually individually, um I really would not recommend focusing at all on anything called an isp model. I would only recommend focusing on something called an individual model. That is, you know a person's, or what did you call it? My home is my castle, um the reason being.

B

It's really very easy for an ISP to exploit things that are there. They don't need a whole lot of help in doing that, but and personally, by the way I do use my own router on behind my ISP router, because my home is my castle and I have very intimate understanding of what that is. P router does.

B

So there is this firewall between my home network and my ISP router and I do want to make absolutely sure that use case is fully supported, um but I. You know, I mean I, also fully support, making sure the ISP for the people who don't know how to do it. I do can support them, because that is very necessary, and so but anyway, I don't think I ET f needs to specifically target the ISPs. I don't think that's your target audience. I think really.

B

The basic question is: how do we get the home NetSuite of protocol solutions more widely known about and understood and I think the killer use case is going to be mesh networking. The problem with mesh networking is right. Now it is, you know why do we buy that additional router, the second router? It's not because we want a second router. It's because I'm trying to get Wi-Fi farther into my house and there's some really thing interesting things going on at other organizations which some of you are probably members of and may know about.

B

But if you're not we're not supposed to talk about it, but it is going on that I think will really get mesh networking to be more accessible to the common person, because, right now it's just like I'm, a gamer and I need my mesh. You know or something like that and for the rest of us or the common people. Getting that second router installed is just so incredibly painful, but it really is for coming people, it's painful, but I, think there's some things that are going on in the industry.

B

That will make it much easier to get that second router installed and I think if they were a comprehensive recommendation of here, some things that we recommend in a multiple router topology in its recommendation from the IETF and it can come from home net. That I think that might be useful might be can't predict the future. But that would be my recommendation of a way to go. Is a home that router recommendation since.

A

Barbara abandoned the chair, I'm just gonna cut the mic lines.

J

After 10 a team time, dudes can Ozzie Apple, um so you definitely want the agree with Barbara I. Just first off I really wanted to disagree with Michael here. Well, I definitely agree that a lot of users- they just get the box that their eyes who speaks them they plug it in and then they forget about it and that's fine and that most you a lot of users are that way and we want that to still work.

J

My understanding of HomeNet is that I don't have the charity memorized, but the two problems were trying to solve is one multihoming and two multi routers in that use case. Hope Ninh is completely useless. If you just get one box from the CP, we're not providing any value. Add so there's no point in doing work, and that's for that use case. That's already solved and that's been solved for over the less. Unless.

D

There is a simple way to put the ISP router in breach mode.

J

There is no such thing, I know like the moment. You've said the word bridge mode. You've lost like that's, not simple anymore, so in my mind, they're really like the power of home net, and what we're trying to solve here is that you have your ISP box and you go by the second router and you plug it in and now they play nicely together or you buy these three things. They just work, that's what we're trying to solve here.

J

So this is the specific scenario that we're working on and in that case, I as a user bought this second box as Varro was saying because Wi-Fi was shitty in my bedroom and or because I got this second uplink in both of those cases, there's really no incentive from the CP, so I really see like the whole, my home, my castle, yeah.

K

J

The end of the day, the user bought this to solve a problem they're the ones with the control and the incentive.

J

G

So my point to the ISP router was: if I have a DOCSIS connection and a fiber-to-the-home connection. At the same time, they would be better if, if I can't put them in bridge mode, they need to participate in the home net for this to work decently. So did this was what I was saying about getting into the ISP router, but I think it comes to our comment on the on the that email about this on the list and the qualifier element.

L

So it's in tumor, sinski and I think the the homie Castle I mean Barbara's point is very true: we we buy those second round boxes to solve a problem, and 90% of us here have probably solved that problem. Much like I solved recently with my brother. It's the mom problem right we buy stuff just to send to our parents just to fix their problems. Right I mean come on. 90% of us here have probably done this recently right. So when I see the home that thing I exactly see it for that.

L

You know, as that sort of solution right, yeah I, don't want to touch the IHP thing. I just want to send them something to make the whole world better sort of thing right, though so, absolutely okay, we're done so. Let's see.

A

And actually I have a question for Jordi free-roaming, and can you clarify the question you're asking the working group to answer because it's not entirely clear to me why, in a single question.

D

The question is: do we as a working group believe that we need to gap, have some guidelines about how to deploy or if we need to require ComNet in all kind of routers or only retailer routers or only ice B, routers I. Think that's. Basically the question.

A

Okay, maybe you can send our question to the list as a specific mail Thanks.

B

As soon as like rain figured out, you just have to plug it in the USB is weird. That's.

E

Always hi uh-oh look at this I can actually read the slides so I'm here to talk about simple on that naming architecture document has been adopted by the working group.

E

Stuart Cheshire has kindly agreed to join us as a co-author and has been contributing. Documents been clarified, based on a bunch of comments that were that came up during during the call for adoption. It's seems like it's got. Sort of the outline of the document is, is probably complete, but it's not detailed enough. So I don't think that you could actually do an implementation just using the document as it stands, so it still needs some some work.

E

There are some open issues in the dough. By the way I mean. Is anybody actually interested in this document or am I speaking to okay? Good? It's actually not a huge number, but it's better than nothing so.

E

Open issues there's actually there's a fair amount of text in the document that I'm not convinced, actually needs to be. There might be curious to know what people think about that. If you've read it so document there's their stuff that talks about, like you know what the state of the art is prior to this, which is interesting to us as working group people but I'm not sure it's going to be interesting to a reader of the document. So that's the question there.

E

We had a really good conversation on the mailing list about MP VD about three months ago. That is not yet been reflected in a new document. I'm, not convinced that that belongs in this document. It may be that we actually need a special document for npvd and there are some issues with MP VD in the sense that we don't really have a way to configure it right now, but that's being worked on in the interior working group.

E

Let's see, updates Wow I have no idea where I wrote that oh yeah, so in terms of the security model, there is no security and.

E

So one of the goals is to try and give us at least the degree of security that we have with with multicast DNS, which is that you can't really do multicast dns off the wire. So one of the things that's that's mentioned in the document, but not yet detailed, is how we do how we detect that a response to a to an M, DNS query actually came from the wire that needs some work C and then you know, as hopefully, all of you know. We. We punted on DNS, SEC, validation, global names and remote use.

E

Those were in the larger document, so.

E

We have something that we can work on right now. I have kind of a question about it, which is it seemed like there was a ton of pushback on doing a fully functional naming architecture in various working group meetings in the past, and yet when we decided to go with the simple architecture, a lot of disappointment was expressed by other people who didn't say anything when the controversy about how complicated it was came up. So so I still don't actually feel like.

E

That issue was resolved and I'm curious to know what people in the room think and also you know what people who aren't in the room. Think and also you know, I, don't actually know if the people who were against doing a more fully featured naming architecture actually had any interest in doing implementations anyway. So I'm, not even so. It's really very up in the air as to whether whether we're actually going down the right path and.

E

You know, obviously the document is written, doesn't satisfy the home that naming architecture. So that's a problem that said the document has some useful stuff in it. The document isn't a waste of time, because even if we do add more features, the the basic features in the document are still features that we're gonna want in the full system. So it'd be nice.

E

If we could do simple implementations that people could look at the document and see if they understand what the document says to do, and it would also, of course be helpful to get some feedback. So that's where it's at that's.

E

My last slide comments, questions, criticisms.

E

I'm kind of assuming that people have read the document if they're interested in.

M

Putting people on the spot go ahead: Andrew I, my name is Andrew Sullivan I have read this, and so first of all, I was one of the people. Who's complaining about the the lowered expectation but I I. Think I also said on the list as well that if this is the expectation that we could actually realistically implement, then that's probably better than nothing. What I like about the current draft is that it just says it right. It just says: well, yeah, we said we're gonna, do this and then we're not gonna.

M

Do it and that's too bad and that's clarifying.

E

Point uh-huh the fact that we're doing this doesn't mean we're not doing that. It just means that this is step. One of two steps well,.

M

That's actually what the draft says right. It promises that there's some some later graph, that's going to come and in fact, in the remarks that I was about to send, but before this I was going to send the list, but I haven't gotten around to it.

M

Yet because they're not polished, the I I think that's a bad idea to be honest with you, okay Rama, so to promise a later document that you haven't written yet seems like a bad idea, but the the the bigger worry that I have about the draft as it is, is you're quite right. There are some some pretty significant gaps in the things that it it proposes right that there's, for instance, you meant DNS SEC just a moment ago, so I'm gonna pick on it right. It says.

M

Well, you know that's beyond the scope, but here's the things you must do and there's the you know the 2119 must in there and and that's that's a pretty big hand. Wavey must and I think that the working group- this isn't a criticism of the of the document authors. This is just a problem for the working group. We're either gonna have to decide that their stuff were we're gonna, punt and by punting. What I mean is we're just not going to do it rather than having a specification that says?

M

Well, you know you have to do this stuff, but we're not going to tell you anything about how it works, because that's that's actually the worst kind of specification right, a specification that says you must do it, but everybody does it differently, means that it doesn't really interoperate at all, and the goal here is interoperation. So that's that's actually where my biggest worry about about the gaps in the document are but I'll send I'll send this in more detail to the list, but that's a sort of general point that wouldn't make so.

E

Andr I mean do you if I were if, by some miracle, the working group were to turn around and say gosh. We really want a full full-featured home that naming architecture. Would you support that? Is that what you want well.

M

You know the the problem in this working group has been that you know in the past. We we really really wanted, for instance, routing things and that we said well. We want both and then we spent like a year and change fighting about it and what what seems to me to be really important actually is to get things shipping, so I'm I'm inclined to support.

M

You know lowered expectations that that actually yield real results that people can live with, because I think there are some gnarly problems in look, but let me step up even one more level of abstraction. Sorry to do it on what we're trying to do is make a protocol that really is designed for geeks and a you know. It's got a bunch of assumptions about about how that thing is going to be operated, the kind of environment it was gonna, be operated in we're trying to make that a totally no management required protocol.

M

That works just fine, no matter what weird stuff you do in your network. Well, that's that's! A pretty seriously hard problem and I think that the the chances that we will not succeed at doing it completely satisfactorily for everyone, they're, pretty high and and and I'm and and the more ambition we have for this, the bigger the danger is I guess. Maybe I was more hopeful when this all got started than I am now, but uh you know I I'm, so so yes, I'm willing to work on it.

M

But at the same time, I'm keen to you know, see some results and make some people happy. So the.

E

Frustrating thing for me is that actually I had pretty clear ideas for how to solve a lot of these problems in the original naming architecture document and was told that nobody wanted to do them by a small minority of people. But nobody argued with that really and so, for example, I mean if you look at acne acne solves the same kind of problem that we need to solve to make DNS SEC work. It's not that hard.

E

It's been done, I, don't I, don't think that we I, don't think that's something we can't do and so um I don't actually buy that it's as hard a problem as people think it is, and my experience like you know working so so you know, there's there's the there is. The you know best is the enemy of good enough attitude and then there's the you know.

E

If you, if you don't try to solve the problem, then you're actually gonna wind up, creating a thing that makes it harder for you to solve the problem here, I'm trying to kind of like ride the the the razor's edge between those two cases here where like, on the one hand, I'm not actually totally closing off the possibility of salt really solving the problem, but at the same time I'm not really solving the problem, and so but like I, don't think DNS psychedelic automatic DNS SEC delegation to a home net router is something that would be so difficult to standardize.

E

This working group couldn't do it. The only question is whether the worker wants to do it so and and by the way doing that would solve a whole bunch of problems with the security architecture. Yeah.

M

I I agree with that, but, like I just want to point out that, like you know, actual professionals who do this for a living mess up their deals like all the time so.

D

I'm not not yes,.

M

That making it automatic is gonna be easier, but I mean maybe it is. But but let me let me say something else, and and and- and let me just preface this by saying- I- don't think that I this is not to try to cast aspersions on anyone. I I think that the earlier effort that you made suffer a little bit from some of the timing of the drafts right, so that it was very difficult for people to follow all of the drafts. The larger draft I.

M

You know there were some sketches in it of things that, like it was pretty obvious. You understood what you meant, but I'm, not sure everybody else did and and I think that I think that that came up against just the fact of a certain amount of energy that had been sapped out of the working group because of other fights that had gone on and and that's an unfortunate fact. But it's the way it's the way the world is right. Sometimes we just have to ship things.

M

There are lots of things about the DNS that I wish were different, but we didn't manage to do it.

M

I think that you know I can think of some working groups that maybe we could have done a better job with with with causing some stuff to happen and I bear some responsibility for that, but it didn't happen and and I think that this is an example where you know, I I will try to send some text to try to to improve some of the things that I'm concerned about here, but I really don't feel good about a document that says you must do this and it tells you nothing at all about how to do it.

M

I think that that's that's not way lies madness by.

E

This are you talking about setting up a secure delegation or setting up a delegation? Well.

M

I mean there's, there's a secure delegation, stuff, there's some there's some stuff, for instance in there about about the registration for discovery processes and so on, and it's this has got to be on the local link. But of course we know that these networks are not only local link things and then there's literally a parenthesis. How well you know we can.

E

Know that that's that's one, that I think definitely needs to be addressed, but but yeah. The reason why so you.

M

Know please just don't understand that as an attack yeah.

E

The reason the text about delegation is in there is actually that Stuart mentioned. You know: okay, great, we don't. Actually we haven't specified a mechanism for how to set up a DNS delegation, but it'll be really stupid, not to at least say that there ought to be some place in the UI where you can type in what the domain name of the net is and have that kind of work right.

E

So that's that's why that's there but and I agree that it would be nice if it were more clearly specified, but I'm not sure how to do that without without biting that whole Apple. You know, speaking of apples, Stewart.

N

Cherisher from Apple thanked Ted for inviting me to join you on this. My recollection of what happened is more or less aligned with what Andrew said at the time you did the original work.

N

It wasn't enthusiasm in the working group for tackling a complicated problem like that, so the working group guidance was well will support a simpler thing and that's what the document is right now and I think this serves a useful purpose, because it shows you know a simple thing, maybe too simple, but that helps them, make it clear what other gaps that we need to fill in and that may not be the full generality of everything we originally imagined, but it hopefully they'll be guidance from the working group about this stuff is adequate and these are the gaps that need to be expanded.

N

A little bit more mm-hmm.

I

B

Okay, so it looks like the line has died out, but I want to ask you Ted about your last item here, which says it would be helpful to have some working group participation in this work. What sort of participation would you like so.

E

It would be nice if there's anybody in the working group who's interested in implementing this stuff if they would look at the document and see if they believe that they can implement it and and I think the answer will be no and the comments that come out of that exercise will be useful. So that's that's the the main thing actually and then also like you know these questions that I asked like in the previous slide. You know how do you feel about the text in the document like like there's a ton of text about that?

E

There's a ton of detailed explanatory text about why things are the way they are and that's maybe that's good and maybe that's bad. Maybe we should just specify how to do things and not say why to do them in the same text. So you know we could put that in an appendix, so you so people are interested in why it's specified that way they can find out. But maybe we should just say do this and that would be much less text to read and therefore would be much more likely to actually get implemented.

E

So that's a question that I have I mean I. Given that I wrote the text, I mean I, suppose I could just go and make that change, but I'm curious what people think and so the the the the there was some feedback on the oh one version of the individual submission document.

E

There hasn't been any feedback on the new version of the document which you know given when it happened, isn't surprising, but but basically that's what I'm asking for is feedback on the new version of the document.

B

Okay, so certainly as chair, we can prompt people to please provide feedback on the document. Please provide some concrete recommendations of any changes that people would like to see and please try to implement and provide feedback as to experiences implementing.

A

Can you come to the next slide so so am I right is that the plan you would like to see follow it is that you or, and others hopefully implement this, and when you get done with that, then you can finish the document and then we could publish it. That's the idea, okay, and is it implicit in that that if nobody implements it at some point we say: well, we tried it and it didn't get traction or what's the what's, the fallback I mean.

E

So I think this is really useful work in principle, but if nobody's interested in doing it then doesn't matter if it's I mean if it's not useful, if nobody does it right, so I mean personally what I'd like to see happen and you know I, don't know how realistic this is to get full support for this in an open, wrt distribution, maybe a fork distribution, or maybe it's an option that you can configure in the menus or something like that, so that people can actually like install this and have it work.

E

Because, right now you can't- and you know so- like I'm working on Stewart and I, and the hackathon did some coding on the mdns stuff that we've we've been working on, which is mentioned in the document and which is being worked on sort of in the end I'm Dennis working groups not adopted yet so it's not official, but so in principle, that code could go into open wrt and it would be nice if that wasn't the only place, because you know it's just an open wrt and it doesn't exist anywhere else.

E

Then you know that doesn't give us much interoperability testing, so yeah. So that's that's! You know. If that doesn't happen, then I'd say we're hosed.

A

So it wasn't clear to me: I think you asked how many people were interested, but how many people have read this draft or the independents draft before that.

A

So there's like a couple additional okay but I, don't know anything.

E

Two of the hands are per authors,.

L

Maybe while people are here see if we can get people to commit to reviewing it good idea and then I can take, I can write names down in two minutes. How's.

A

That that's a fine suggestion how many people would be willing to review this drafts and send comments to the list and.

A

Tim, you need to look around and I hope you recognize the names. I don't or just keep your hand up, don't take those hands down yet I.

A

See Andrew at the back: ok.

N

E

B

E

To the Ted show yeah.

E

Okay, so what's what's in this is, is kind of there's a couple things. The bulk of this slideshow is actually what I think maybe should be in the hum net security document.

E

Maybe the working group will agree with me, maybe maybe everybody will be bored and we've actually done some work, so we actually have a Babel security document that that's an individual submission, I announce it on the mailing list, awhile back I. Think I, don't know. If people have read it. Has anybody seen that document.

J

Okay, well, we have one person who seen it sorry. David's cannot see a cow. Fine question: are you talking about the H Mac extension to Babel? No.

E

I'm talking about draft lemon, it's the one that certain people from an organization that that apparently shall not be named actually didn't birth. The text for based on some email exchanges in which I was involved and I'm officially the author, but hopefully that will change soon.

E

J

Have to look at it, yeah you're.

E

One of the people who is on the CC list- so hopefully you know about it so yeah. The document name is: let's see.

E

That's the one draft lemon HomeNet, Babel security latest and basically well actually I have some text on it. So let's talk about that, so the we submitted to there was zero version of the document in time for the ITF 100 deadline. It provides a mechanism for for distinguishing between babel routers. So you can just you can trust some and not others.

E

It identifies which server sent a packet. It works for multicast and unicast, using public key for multicast and shared secret for unicast, and it relies on h NCP for trust establishment, which is an open problem. So for multicast we just sign the packet using the elliptical curve. Hopefully there are fewer multicast than then unicast packets. But that's you know, that's something we talked about in previous sessions, so the the shared secret from for unicast has established this using DTLS.

E

We don't invent a new method for doing that, but then the shared secret is just used to sign the packet. So it's not quite it's not entirely DTLS and shared secret is the shared secrets are pairwise, so in other words, we don't share a secret across the entire network, because then it's not a secret. We we use diffie-hellman to produce a secret that that is shared by two hosts only and that allows us to identify who sent a packet.

E

The spec is actually pretty complete. I mean it's probably not done, but I think that somebody who's reasonably knowledgeable about DTLS and ECDSA could probably do an implementation based on it and I guess. The question is: is there any interest in working on this this stuff?

E

It's not clear any whether it belongs here and Babel I mean I. Guess it probably belongs in Babel, but this is. This is a respect, that's envisioned as being for use on the home net. So I don't know if it would work in different environments. So.

E

Do we have any Babel people here besides David.

E

Okay, so yeah anyway, now you know about it. I did it.

J

David Babel person, apparently I, clearly think that yeah there's interest on this and I think the bit of context that maybe not everyone in the room has is the Babel Biss RFC, which is moving tables to the standards track, is getting close to last call and there's a serious discussion about making it secure, because that was one of the parts of the charter of the working group and so I think there's definitely interest in this yeah.

J

Maybe Babel is the place to do it because some people have said no. We can't publish standards track routing protocol without a security mechanism, and maybe this could be it yeah yeah.

E

Oh, no, you should bring that up in Babel on yep.

G

E

Their product Julius.

G

No, oh I think definitely is a Babel person. He's saying I'm, not sure that this coincides with the thinking of the Babel group. Okay,.

E

Be nice to have a little more detail than that, but okay.

E

So alright, so I mean we. We.

E

Right now, the the security of Babel on the home net is essentially just you know, cross your fingers and hope and personally I. Don't think that that's a good idea but like if essentially nobody else in this room, thinks that having a secure home that matters that I guess I can't really do anything about that. But that would be a very disappointing outcome, I think so and on to more detail about this.

E

So we don't really have a home that security architecture right now, I think we need to have one and I think it needs to talk about a bunch of things needs to talk about. This is, and by the way, this is all basically cribbed from a conversation that stephen and a couple of other folks that I had a lot of about a month ago. I think so.

E

The the the issues that we identified include: how do we establish a perimeter meaning which hosts are in or which routers are in the home, then in which, which routers or not what kind of perimeter security we have? And you know so, you know with a regular home network with ipv4 and that you have perimeter security in the form of NAT which isn't very secure, but nevertheless it's it's harder to get through than nothing. And so then another issue we need to discuss is how we establish trust.

E

So how do we figure out if the new router that's trying to join the HNC p network is allowed to join it or not? How do we secure DNS lookups? How do we protect service publications so another it's? How do we avoid having a rogue device on the network claimed to be providing a service that it's seen be provided in the past and essentially, like you know, grant like so you?

E

You know the usual sort of danger case, for this is you're printing out your taxes and somebody on the network notices that you're about to pray your taxes somehow and masquerades as your printer and gets your print out and somehow that turns out to be bad for you. So you know, generally speaking, we would like.

E

We would like it that when we published a service that some other device can't come along later and claim to be that same service or you know either for denial, a surface surface, denial of service purposes or to steal your data and then also you know, most home nets or most most home home network routers have the ability to talk to a web UI and right now. If you try to talk to that web UI you, basically you have two options: either you don't secure it at all.

E

So now you have all of those packets, including passwords, and things like that, going over the network and the clear or if you secure with HTTPS, you get a security warning when you try to connect to it, so we don't really have a solution for that. As far as I know, it would be nice to have one. So these are things that I think ought to be in the document.

E

The current thinking about perimeter establishment is that H NCP does it, and this is I mean you know. This is something we've talked about for years. Right, it's not like. This is new. It's just that this is something that probably ought to be in the document.

E

So if we get a previous delegation, the thing we got the prefix delegation from is not part of the home that if we are talking to an H NCP router that the H NCP router is part of the home that unless it's not trusted which yeah so and then for the case of a lowlands, where we probably aren't running H NCP on devices out on the lln low-power lossy networks, we have a gateway and the Gateway is participating in the HNC P and on behalf of whatever devices are behind it.

E

For perimeter security firewall that mimic snap behavior is sort of a starting point on the current state of the art. On that we have a document RFC 1692 that talks about how that works. So another question to pursue is whether we need different behavior than that, and also whether RFC 1692 gives us enough information to implement perimeter security.

E

If we have multiple up links and then in addition, there's some there's some work, you know the PCP working group produced some stuff that allows you to punch holes and firewalls in a programmatic way, that's kind of nice.

E

It might be interesting to to specify that that needs to be supported and also mud provides a way of saying what device, what a devices sort of network activity profile should look like, and that can allow us both to block things that it's not that are not supposed to talk to it and to enable things that are supposed to talk to it. So I think there's possibly a pony in there establishing trust.

E

So we need some kind of keying mechanism and we need to be able to figure out that a key is trusted, and so the current thinking on that is that we publish public keys in H n CP, which will require an extension H n CP. And then we have some kind of trust.

E

Establishment ritual, like you know, sort of like it could be Bluetooth style pairing where you have where you punch in an ID number or a pin to validate that you're talking to the right thing or it could be, you know, could it could be something where you, where you plug the two devices together using a wired network? And then you press a button or something? And that says: okay, you can trust what you're talking to on the other end of this of this wire.

E

But we need to talk about how that works, and we had a conversation about that at the last IETF that no work has been done on that since then.

E

Securing dns lookups nice to use DSS DNS, but we don't have a way to do it. As as discussed in the previous talk, we don't have a way to do a DNS, SEC delegation that would allow us to have a trust anchor. So one option is to come up with a way to have a delegation that allows us to establish trust anchor and the other is to come up with some kind of hack to do trust.

E

On first use, validation of trust anchors for the home for home DARPA on the on the theory that that you know home DARPA can't have a trust anchor and therefore, therefore, there's no opportunity for for there to be a conflict there and then for protecting service publication. We actually have two ways to publish services on the home that one of them is using mdns and the other is using the dns SD over dns.

E

Publication protocol, which, which Stuart Stuart's written up so with mdns all we all we can really do, is detect that the packet was actually sent on the local link, and so we need to be able to do that for DNS SD over DNS.

E

We can use the service registration mechanism that that Stuart defined and obviously we have to support em DNS for the long run, because M DNS is not going away anytime soon, so we're always going to have it for the for the foreseeable future. We're gonna have both of these, but obviously you get a lot more security. If you do Service registration than if you don't.

E

So and then how do we protect the web user interface or do we do something else? We could have an API that Apps talked to. If we have an API that apps talk to, then we can have some way of establishing trust using a ritual like I described earlier.

E

However, if we use a Web API, then we have to be able to get a PKI, sir. We can use Acme to get a PKI certificate.

E

Trust anchor, but it doesn't seem to be supported and any browser that you're likely to be able to download. So again, we that doesn't really help us, so that's kind of an open issue, if we had it seems like it seems like a lot of things in the in the security of the of the home net, would be better if we could get a global name automatically. So that's why I'm so interested in that particular problem.

E

So questions is there stuff that that I that people know about security issues that ought to be mentioned in this architecture that people know about that. I didn't mention, and also is there something in here that shouldn't be in here.

E

Does anybody have any interest in commenting on that sounds like no so and then there's a whole pile of documents too right so I mean I. Suppose one of the things to say about this is you know, as you were talking about in the home, that architecture there's a ton of work to do here and, if nobody's interested in doing the work and if nobody's interested in implementing the work, then there's no point in talking about it.

E

But these are the things that I think need to be or potentially need to be done in order to address the stuff that I just talked about in the slide deck. It's kind of a lot of documents.

E

So does the working group does it work, I mean I, suppose the two questions here in principle, if somebody was gonna work on this, does the working group think that this is a good idea and then in practice, does anybody actually want to work on it.

A

L

Item Sinskey, or should you figure out talk to the neighbor people and figure out where some of this should lie? I leave from the table security, stuff right well,.

E

Babel is an app I mean it's one.

L

Of the things, oh then,.

E

Yeah I mean you know, I mean if the Babel guys that's that's, been kind of an ongoing thing. The Babel guys seemed to actually prefer that we just not do any security at all and.

E

Not there, it's.

A

A baby love working group now so it's shorter.

N

Strike head Stewart Cheshire, since you asked, if the support for this I would love to see a way of interacting with things on the home network. That gives you security without relying on the route PKI and a global domain name.

N

There has been some interesting work in Firefox in the developer edition something they're calling fly. Web I, don't know where the name comes from, but as part of this effort, one of the things they're doing is identifying devices on your network or physics.

N

Identifying web servers you're talking to not by the name or the address, but by other things like hash at the public key, because when you're configuring, your home gateway, 192, 168, 0 1, is the same IP address in many different places, but it's not the same device and when your web browser autofills your passwords you've just sent the wrong password to the device you may not want to disclose it to. Until recently, all of these home devices were clear text HTTP in the last couple of years.

N

They seem to have got the message that security is important, so they're now running HTTPS, which means you get a certificate error. So now you have a secure connection to the imposter instead of a clear text connection and but it's kind of not their fault, because there isn't a good way to do that. Also, in the last couple of years, the browser vendors have got stricter for many many Safari windows, a certificate error. It would give you a blue throbbing button saying go ahead. Click me now.

N

They're much stricter you've got to click through several things and actually typing your administrator password to allow access to this untrustworthy thing. So we've got ourselves in a situation. That's not good at all. Training.

E

Users to violate their own security, basically.

J

David's Kazi sorry I had to jump up when you said Babel people don't want any security, so I definitely can't speak on behalf of all Babel P, but in my personal opinion, oh yes, we absolutely want security, especially like, in my opinion. Homenet without security is just a non-starter like this is 2017 it's just. It will never get deployed unless it has a decent security.

J

What I was saying on the babel mailing list was that the current babel RFC is not necessarily the best place to mandate it, because the only way we'll get any kind of security is if we have a whole security architecture, and that includes the trust, establishment and maybe the trust establishment for the whole net isn't necessarily the same one. As for all of the papal use cases, my.

B

J

Was that's, maybe that's probably the part that needs to be done in home net, not in Babel yeah, but I really think we need to secure babel and they're already ways to do that.

J

The babel chairs and everything can contribute to me, but I think it's we may have an emerging consensus. That DTLS could be, for example, a solution for that. Thanks to things like unicast, hello, that's an option.

G

Channeling Julius again is saying: Babel meeting is on Friday I'm, giving a security presentation so.

E

You might mention to Julius that there's been a proposal by the chairs to move Babel to Thursday afternoon, which would probably really suck.

G

Feliz listening.

E

So he heard you okay,.

C

Thierry mandersohn responsible ad: there is a milestone for perimeter security for home net. If there is no security in home net, you could probably insist a non-starter and I really really desperately want to see home it to be able to claim success. Security is a part of that success. Thanks.

B

Barbara Starck I do think security is really important to that effect. We do have a breakfast on Wednesday morning, where people are meeting at the IETF registration desk and going to find someplace to go talk from 8:00 to 9:00, um and if anybody wants to join, you know come join us Wednesday morning, 8 o'clock at the ietf registration desk and we're going to try and have a little sit-down and chat a little more about security. um Another thing that I see on this security question is number one.

B

There is no certificate authority in the world, not Verisign, not any other, that I trust to say whether or not something is trusted to be on my home network, not a one of them, and so the there is nothing that can come from above. Whatever trust has is that is going to be in the home network. It has to come from me, the home network owner. If it doesn't come from me, then I don't trust it, and so that's always been my problem with talking about you know, route CAS and things like that.

B

If the root CA isn't me, it's not trusted.

E

Okay, so we're gonna make home net users run their own CA.

E

Sorry I had to say.

A

Your own CA are generating it yeah.

E

A

E

A

I, do those things make much sense to anybody in the world? Yes,.

M

This is Andrew Sullivan I, the the the thing that I'm worried about is that we have- and this is the thing that has been the bug- bear all along for this working group right. We have a bunch of people in this room who are experimenting with these things, who have complicated stuff that they want to do and, and we all go to our grandmother's house is apparently thinks they're out of fix that and but but for for shipping devices. None of those things are realistic right.

M

Anything that involves um you know, step one, the open box step to do something. This is not any longer a realistic, think right, it's you're, just gonna plug it in and it's got to work and that that's I think we've heard that many tons at the microphone so I'm really concerned about anything that says. Well, it can't you know, I can't depend on this or that certificate authority or whatever I think. Instead, what we've got to do is is set up the requirements. The other way along the lines of you know.

M

You need to be able to do this advanced stuff. If you want to be able to do it, you know we can't lock people out, but we've got to be able to make stuff easy enough or or this is gonna, be a failure in a different dimension. So.

E

So what I heard you saying is that is that we we can address Barbara's use case, but that's not the default yeah.

M

I think that's probably right, but and maybe maybe those are the questions, maybe that's the the prerequisite for the for the first document you had in your big list um before you get to to architecture document.

M

You know maybe or maybe that's the document where we have some of these principles- that we got to hand her out and I hope it doesn't take us a year to do it.

G

Michael Aaron, so so.

D

G

I think that it's looking at these boots are problems, it's basically impossible to achieve what Barbara said and then having just plug it in it. Just works. I mean there needs to be some set for your blipping, your a phone and with NFC and provisioning. Something on this thing in order to say I trust this I mean. Do we think that there there is a magic way of doing this. I haven't I.

E

Don't think there is a single way we talked about this last time and I think that there are a number of ways of doing it. I can tell you some of them if you're interested but I think it's. You know that I was I was getting the sense that there were a lot of glazed over eyes during the previous presentation and I think that might even get further into the glaze over zone. It just.

G

Basically, there needs to be a minister, it's not going to be like just plug it in it. Just works right, because this Auto Trust doesn't work yeah.

E

I mean I think that this is actually the easiest way to establish trust. So.

G

If we can say like my phone, is my certificate authority or something and I'm now you know magically waving one that your thingy there and now you're part of my administration to manage I like I, want to administrate you that it's like it's gonna, be something like that. Yeah.

J

David's Kazi Apple definitely agree with previous comments. I think it might be worth it for us to take a step back and agree on at least if not a solution, requirements for the trust establishment, because it's true, they asked bra ways. You can have security and you can have the best usability in the world. Then it's hard to have both- and in this case the as simple as you just plug it in and you're done, there's no way in hell the fact usually not physically possible to make that secure.

J

Because then you could have something evil that just plugs in and just works, so it might be worth it first to decide. My personal opinion is that if we have someone said the word optional security, let's not waste our time on that, if it's optional, no one's gonna use it and just not worth anyone's time to standardize.

J

Any of that, let's make the users secure and most of them aren't technical, and in that point we don't necessarily need to standardize these specific menu details of what a solution is, but we could perhaps standardize that in order to add a device to a network, you need a pairing step or a device on the network hands a key to the new device, so that could be with an app on the phone and as someone who works for coming, that makes films.

J

That could be a good solution, but a lot of these routers are really cheap and they probably don't support and FCU other things. One other possible solution, plugging in a wire plus, you know pressing a button. That's a solution, another one you can do that came out of a conversation I had yesterday, you have one of the routers. Just have an LED blink with a certain pattern and have a user press a button on the other router at the same rhythm.

J

That sounds a little ridiculous, but if it's a twenty seconds that 20-second process and then you've exchanged enough bits that you have keys but anyway, I think we can't make progress on a security architecture unless we have a trust model, because that's gonna be the sticking point. The other parts aren't easy for from it, but we'll figure those out right. So.

A

Do not sound like you were volunteering to help.

J

A

Sorry, you didn't answer the question. You know when somebody says we must do stuff and yeah. Okay.

J

I can help, but we, the main point is: we should have a conversation here and on this particular topic. I can help try writing some stuff up, but as Ted was saying, this topic has had a problem of lack of engagement, yeah.

E

I mean one thing: that's coming for me out of this conversation is that it might be worth I think there might be people in the IETF who are not aware that this conversation is occurring. Who would be interested in it if they were aware of it?

E

And so one of my takeaways from this is that I'm, probably gonna go, give a presentation just very similar to this one at the next Boston meetup, the next Boston IETF meetup, which has a bunch of security interest to people who show up for it and and even if they're, not personally interested in getting involved.

E

They may actually tell their friends about it, because it's I personally I think this is a really cool thing to be working on, like like, like it's a little discouraging to me when I get up here and talk about this because I'm like really excited about this I, totally want to be working on this and like I'm, looking at the crowd and everybody's sort of like one stick, gonna stop talking, I think.

J

That's a great point, uh if anything maybe try to get on the agenda of like the security open meeting, because judge hearing a oh yeah we're just not gonna secure. This is gonna freak them out, so bad. They might come out and help good.

E

E

Think that's the end.

B

Okay, so it sounds like there is certain interest: um I'm, not sure that there was enough interest to go ahead and adopt today. Would that be accurate.

B

Right, okay, I thought you put something: oh just the slides. Okay, oh right, okay,.

A

The draft mentioned is really a bad.

B

A

Or nothing I guess, right: okay,.

B

So, thank you very much. Ted apparently Stephen has something to say at the microphone over there. Now.

B

No, no okay! So again, I want to remind people want to remind people who are interested in further discussing the security topic of home net and also of Babel in all of this home networking stuff in general and I. Think it also gets to the securing of your name, your DNS SD services, all that sort of thing. It's not just Babel that there is the meeting informal on Wednesday morning, where we'll probably find a place and I suggested.

B

Maybe the meeting room where DNS SD is going to be right afterwards, because clearly, there's some people who are going to be in DNS SD who are interested in this topic and if there's nothing else, I think we're done. Thank you everybody. It was a lot of fun.

O

And thank you. Thank you.

J

Quick shameless plug. There is also a conversation about security of service discovery, India necessity, which might be related so show up for that too, and.

B

Of course, you know if we do meet in the DNS SD room beforehand. There people can just like due to inertia, stay there that.

J

Sounds like a great idea.