‹ Back
Deploy360 15 November 2016

[email protected], Day 3: IoT, PKI & Still More IPv6

Kevin Meynell
By Kevin MeynellSenior Manager, Technical and Operational Engagement

img_6761 Wednesday at IETF 97 in Seoul is another busy day, with the primary focus being on the Internet-of-Things, but with other relevant sessions on PKI and routing. Each day we’re bringing you blog posts pointing out what Deploy360 will be focusing on.

The day opens with a choice between the Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks and Global Routing Operations Working Groups on Wednesday morning at 11.20 KST (UTC+9).

ROLL focuses on routing issues for low power devices using wireless or power line networks as existing routing protocols are not entirely satisfactory in these environments. Low power and lossy networks (LLN) are likely to be widely used to provision the Internet-of-Things, but this working group is only considering IPv6-based architectural frameworks for these application scenarios.

The agenda for GROW had still to be published at the time of writing, but there’s an IPv6-related draft currently under consideration. Default IPv4 and IPv6 Unicast EBGP Route Propagation Behavior Without Policies defines the default behavior of a BGP speaker when there is no import or export policy associated with a BGP session for a IPv4 or IPv6 Unicast Address Family.

NOTE: If you are unable to attend IETF 97 in person, there are multiple ways to participate remotely.

After lunch there’s again another choice to be made between the Home Networking and Automated Certificate Management Environment Working Groups at 13.30 KST (UTC+9).

Homenet is developing protocols for residential networks based on IPv6, and after a flurry of activity that saw RFCs 7787 and 7788 published earlier in the year, it has a relatively quiet agenda this time. However, there is a proposed update to the Home Networking Control Protocol (HNCP) specification to eliminate the recommendation for a default top-level name for local name resolution, whilst another on the Special Use Top Level Domain defines .homenet as special use top-level domain to replace .home as there is evidence that .home queries frequently leak out of their local environments and reach the root name servers. Last but not least, there’s an update to the Homenet Naming and Service Discovery Architecture that covers how services advertise and register themselves both on the homenet and public Internet.

ACME has been developing a standards-based REST API allowing agent software to authenticate that a server controls a domain, request a certificate, and then install it on a server without human intervention. This has been used in the Let’s Encrypt initiative, and the group will be discussing whether the draft specification is now ready to be considered for RFC status. There’s also a new draft on CAA Record Extensions for Account URI and ACME Method Binding to allow specific methods of domain control validation.

The day concludes with the Thing-to-Thing Research Group at 15.20 KST (UTC+9). This is investigating how to turn the Internet-of-Things in reality and will focus on security considerations, designing the Representational State Transfer (REST) guidelines for building distributed hypermedia systems, as well as CoMI/YANG as the standard data modelling language for IoT.

For more background, please read the Rough Guide to IETF 97 from Olaf, Dan, Andrei, Mat, Karen and myself.

Relevant Working Groups:

‹ Back

Disclaimer: Viewpoints expressed in this post are those of the author and may or may not reflect official Internet Society positions.

Related articles

Improving Technical Security 15 March 2019

DNS Privacy Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

We previously posted about how the DNS does not inherently employ any mechanisms to provide confidentiality for DNS transactions,...

Improving Technical Security 14 March 2019

Introduction to DNS Privacy

Almost every time we use an Internet application, it starts with a DNS (Domain Name System) transaction to map...

Improving Technical Security 13 March 2019

IPv6 Security for IPv4 Engineers

It is often argued that IPv4 practices should be forgotten when deploying IPv6, as after all IPv6 is a...

Join the conversation with Internet Society members around the world