Re: [ANCP] Privacy issue in draft-ietf-ancp-mc-extensions-12

Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com> Thu, 05 December 2013 16:03 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: ancp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ancp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47CB01AE09E for <ancp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 08:03:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eeN3qFbmJvlf for <ancp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 08:03:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from exprod7og104.obsmtp.com (exprod7og104.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.161]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 844591AE07C for <ancp@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 08:03:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob104.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUqCjtiabaIHvPUawjAnp4AR00s/rBf+e@postini.com; Thu, 05 Dec 2013 08:03:02 PST
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 058361B82E5 for <ancp@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 08:03:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-01.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.131]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D37EA190043; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 08:03:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vpna-132.vpn.nominum.com (192.168.1.10) by CAS-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.100) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 08:03:01 -0800
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1822\))
From: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKOT5KrPBxcof7pfQK2tWcaNJ4m7AGuUOc2kfiB5qts+b8OP2w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 11:02:57 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <249E65A6-2248-4E9F-B70D-F2D919B127B5@nominum.com>
References: <529BA104.2050500@gmail.com> <6EE0FD67-10BB-480C-941A-2C7986A91314@cisco.com> <8FB5A82B-9938-4D66-BE24-BD0E8EAC73E0@nominum.com> <529E3183.8010602@gmail.com> <CAKOT5KrPBxcof7pfQK2tWcaNJ4m7AGuUOc2kfiB5qts+b8OP2w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Roberta Maglione <robmgl.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1822)
X-Originating-IP: [192.168.1.10]
Cc: roberta.maglione@telecomitalia.it, "ancp@ietf.org" <ancp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [ANCP] Privacy issue in draft-ietf-ancp-mc-extensions-12
X-BeenThere: ancp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Access Node Control Protocol working group mailing list <ancp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ancp>, <mailto:ancp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ancp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ancp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ancp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ancp>, <mailto:ancp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2013 16:03:10 -0000

On Dec 5, 2013, at 9:56 AM, Roberta Maglione <robmgl.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> In my opinion using the source MAC  address for conditional access purposes seems in-line with this approach, so I would prefer to keep a link with the MAC address (or the device id) in the ANCP message, mitigating the privacy issues either by using an optional hashing/mapping function as you suggested or by adding some clarifications notes as proposed by Francois.

Roberta, I understand where you are coming from.   However, the way these things go is that you do something expedient at time T, which seems harmless.   Then at time T+N, you learn that there are negative consequences to doing that thing.   There is never any time T+M, where M>N, at which the cost of implementing a better solution is lower than it is at time T+N.   So either you fix the problem once you've discovered it, or you don't fix the problem.

So I'm asking you, now that we understand the problem, to fix it.   I would also encourage you to work within the BBF to get the next version of TR-146 to switch over to using the same identifier we are proposing to use here.   I think this is a better approach in the long run than doing nothing, although I fully understand that it is not without cost.