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

Roberta Maglione <robmgl.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 05 December 2013 16:41 UTC

Return-Path: <robmgl.ietf@gmail.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 3873D1AE0E2 for <ancp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 08:41:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 YAq_OtGc7VqU for <ancp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 08:41:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lb0-x22c.google.com (mail-lb0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::22c]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A79A1AE0E1 for <ancp@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 08:41:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lb0-f172.google.com with SMTP id z5so10287936lbh.31 for <ancp@ietf.org>; Thu, 05 Dec 2013 08:41:40 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=stdZcAD1cf30Dse6InQNlhov26emF+ypUypWLlVztcs=; b=uc6W6CjeA5yOKkL3+Nv+x3JkYoI8bGgZsznzJylyZpp2Ro92BTXIhr7bdNaWsHOUo3 b9hGE6CYz/fLiJu/8y85dtjKMPTz2STBUsywCz2WCv16lkMfXhtvSYPVcJOYNjVcD5PX 7oKCErPtjoMcjyQSVl3TFE1QnCH/9BcXrbIzdRx4FsJ/eJaDFa+98leE6Qvf3fGF684n e0MGaWHPo0CfZtpqAccULj+DvGAvwN41QWX8eRaArAbwi+bJpc1gedd551bR39HDdxCV AC9ytKrt1RaxeKty47VAEQsrFW3rVtcCZNPceGZs0l9szKgO/ptyL/pOjVGxrMTcutHy f8Qw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.143.163 with SMTP id sf3mr5072705lbb.20.1386261700366; Thu, 05 Dec 2013 08:41:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.112.143.8 with HTTP; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 08:41:40 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <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> <249E65A6-2248-4E9F-B70D-F2D919B127B5@nominum.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 11:41:40 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKOT5Ko4r0THwfYqjT3b4ZtM4Zggk+ScvDmgMQa17mY0_U7s2Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roberta Maglione <robmgl.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01227a0c3753a704eccc3430
Cc: "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 16:41:49 -0000

Hello Ted,
I got your point.
Thanks
Roberta


On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com> wrote:

> 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.
>
>