new paper from the IWGDPT

[Mueller, Milton L]

I am afraid James is right. This is just sheer confusion, perhaps the terminology is the problem. IoT using various WiFi technologies (home lighting, Alexa, thermostats, cameras) is not what is used to guide an autonomous vehicle as it makes split-second decisions to turn, stop, accelerate, etc. Any moving vehicle that relied on public global DNS to make such decisions would not last 30 minutes on the road.

What exactly is the motive of people insisting that technologies that will not and cannot rely on pubic internet are using DNS and IP?

From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of James Gannon
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2018 5:14 PM
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Subject: Re: new paper from the IWGDPT

No sorry, please stop guys, connected vehicles are not IoT devices. People are really speaking here about areas they have little or no experience with not information on the current technical landscape, the regulatory frameworks or the industry bodies working on these topics.


On 15 Nov 2018, at 21:38, Zakir Syed <00000206f69697ca-dmarc-request at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<mailto:00000206f69697ca-dmarc-request at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>> wrote:



I tend to agree with Tapani,

I think when we use the term connected vehicles, we are referring to an IoT device so IP is definitely there as Farell referred to the low energy version of IPv6 (6LoPAN).

The DNS latency (as Milton mentioned) is definitely a challenge in IoT/connected "vehicle guidance" but that is something which depends on a multitude of parameters particularly the access technology LTE/EvDo/WiFi/WIMAX/Zigbee etc.

And so, when we talk to IoT (e.g. Connected Vehicle) DNS and IP are there. See for example the use of DNSNA and multicast-DNS in the IoT space. Moreover think of the DNS rebinding attacks on IoT devices. Similarly, think of the 2016 Dyn attack, that was accomplished through DNS lookup requests from a huge number of IoT devices.

So yea, IoT devices (could be a connected vehicle, a toy, an IP camera etc) is closely linked to IP and DNS but I don't know if this is something which relates to NCSG at this point in time. thanks.

Best,
Zakir  .


________________________________
From: Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO<mailto:ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO>>
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2018 11:20 PM
Subject: Re: new paper from the IWGDPT

While I don't know if any of this is relevant to NCSG now or ever, I'm
pretty sure some of the examples in the paper did use and depend on
public DNS (at least the one I know a bit more about, NordicWay COOP).

So I think Stephanie was not far off the mark in higlighting this as
something that might become a thing of concern to NCSG at some point.

But the point about DNS latency is good. I should check if they
considered the potential impact of DNS problems.

Tapani

On Nov 11 20:41, Mueller, Milton L (milton at GATECH.EDU<mailto:milton at GATECH.EDU>) wrote:
>
> Steph:
> This paper deals with connected vehicles. You say that domain names will “undoubtedly be involved” at some point. I seriously don’t think they will be. The latency involved in resolving domain names would not be suitable for vehicle guidance. It’s not even clear that internet protocol will be involved in these technologies.
>
> FWIW
> --MM
>
> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>] On Behalf Of Stephanie Perrin
> Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2018 11:46 AM
> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
> Subject: new paper from the IWGDPT
>
>
>  This is slightly off-topic, but members of this list who track IOT and privacy might be interested in this recently released paper from the Berlin Group (aka the International Working Group on Data Protection in Telecommunications).  No specific focus on the DNS but this working paper is a good roundup of latest data protection thinking on this topic.  There will undoubtedly be domain names involved at some point, the question seems to me to be who will control the data from a content perspective.
>
> Stephanie Perrin


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20181116/b872a90c/attachment.htm>