Re: [apps-discuss] privacy in applications - anybody working in this area or interested?

Scott Brim <scott.brim@gmail.com> Wed, 06 November 2013 01:03 UTC

Return-Path: <scott.brim@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D52C821F9D8D for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 17:03:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.295
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.295 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.296, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q+pmUrQ4uUm1 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 17:03:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ob0-x22d.google.com (mail-ob0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22d]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 575C721F9D56 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 17:03:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ob0-f173.google.com with SMTP id gq1so9380390obb.18 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 05 Nov 2013 17:03:50 -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=O6J8zI22DusfrAVFASjXVa3mIiExUYgHmbfCESt7fnY=; b=HOhGuKeJzzUazMK0VKP7pT/wjble5/XmczlX73KvJCBPj9JpjggdlPiY+AsYHM7bq1 cSBEsnp544jD7L3quPphsq7iAgsawpeGrRmOvCsdK0mzIjpYKX6RLR4xXnHZ0riimpBK N+hCY63HdJaZTrd3nSOB3wKL1KQQgspSDrFvbMi9U1kbLcMc5LUa7Nz9e1WJ65fkH9G+ /YOSjieO6m+H0ZvSD3aunMaTRmlQWuBt5Wy+WVVthNRJYMfeh2FAhZj8TUC3w28Hh2h4 794sAwIiJlYFHz6VGQmDaA+daC2UD/Ry6+ls78ja8yePWN3traAiU1mj0cgUzQ9iBmPe SQjw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.104.36 with SMTP id gb4mr324468obb.43.1383699829831; Tue, 05 Nov 2013 17:03:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.182.2.134 with HTTP; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 17:03:49 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <002101ceda82$f49bd4e0$ddd37ea0$@rozanak.com>
References: <002101ceda82$f49bd4e0$ddd37ea0$@rozanak.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 17:03:49 -0800
Message-ID: <CAPv4CP_Te4a9A84khQLRBEVqv8mgcd=QmeiwGRQxkEGC7wdhEQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Scott Brim <scott.brim@gmail.com>
To: Hosnieh Rafiee <ietf@rozanak.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e013a215ad58e7c04ea77b8f7"
Cc: Erik Nordmark <nordmark@sonic.net>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] privacy in applications - anybody working in this area or interested?
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 01:03:50 -0000

On Tuesday, November 5, 2013, Hosnieh Rafiee wrote:

> Hello,
> We're looking for enhancing applications with privacy features by assigning
> different Interface ID (IID) to them. We're looking for people who work on
> privacy in applications. We have a presentation in v6ops tomorrow and we
> ask
> the people who works in this area to contact us and if possible for them to
> attend to our presentation "iid-lifetime".
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rafiee-v6ops-iid-lifetime


Hosnieh,

You've opened up a multi-layer issue here. If each application gets a
separate IID, that could make privacy more difficult, in that it could be
easier to track and correlate the behavior of applications even with low
layer encryption. Your proposal could be okay if each application (or
session, actually) could request a new IID at an arbitrary time, and if
there were a general way for sessions to let each other know this was
happening, like multihomed transport.  Fun yet?

Scott