Re: [Detnet] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-detnet-architecture-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[János Farkas <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alissa,

Please see in-line.

On 4/12/2019 7:08 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
> Hi János,
>
>
>> On Mar 25, 2019, at 12:16 PM, János Farkas <[e-mail] 
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Alissa,
>>
>> We believe that we have addressed your comments in the most recent 
>> revision: 
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-detnet-architecture-12. 
>> (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/utVL9ZVGcOeGtRIASRFx5WT_ErM)
>>
>> Please let us know what else you would like to see done before you 
>> clear your DISCUSS.
>>
>> I/we would be happy to meet with you this week if there is anything 
>> you would like to discuss.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Janos
>>
>>
>> On 2/26/2019 2:20 PM, János Farkas wrote:
>>> Hi Alissa,
>>>
>>> Thank you for your review!
>>>
>>> We can replace
>>> "DetNet is provides a Quality of Service (QoS), and as such, does not
>>>    directly raise any new privacy considerations."
>>> with
>>> "DetNet provides a Quality of Service (QoS), and as such, is not 
>>> expected to
>>>    directly raise any new privacy considerations.”
>
> I don’t understand why this is not expected. From what I can tell, the 
> architecture allows for the use off domain- or app-flow-specific IDs. 
> These seem like a new potential vector for tracking, and one that not 
> every QoS architecture requires.
As far as I understood from below, you were happy with the change to "is 
not expected".

Combined that with this discussion on the related text:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/-L_wsGPMqNEOtPMgsGYaJ30nFXk

We came to the current text:
    DetNet provides a Quality of Service (QoS), and as such, is not
    expected to directly raise any new privacy considerations, the
    generic considerations for such mechanisms apply.  In particular,
    such markings allow for an attacker to correlate flows or to select
    particular types of flow for more detailed inspection.


Flow ID and associated QoS is not a new concept introduced by DetNet; 
therefore, does not expected to raise new concerns.

What specific further changes do you suggest to this text?

>
> This edit also doesn’t seem to cover the potential for additional 
> privacy exposure implied by the discussion of OAM in Section 4.1.1:
Thank you for making clear that this is the text you mean under "novel 
flow IDs and OAM tags" below. It was not clear to me because the 
architecture document does not contain either new / novel   Flow ID / 
OAM tag.

>
> "OAM can involve specific tagging added in the packets for tracing 
> implementation or
> network configuration errors; traceability enables to find whether a 
> packet is a replica, which DetNet relay node performed the 
> replication, and which segment was intended for the replica.

This text is there since: 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-finn-detnet-architecture-05.

> Active and hybrid OAM methods require additional bandwidth to perform 
> fault management and performance monitoring of the DetNet domain. OAM 
> may, for instance, generate special test probes or add OAM information 
> into the data packet.”
This was added based on 
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/detnet/current/msg01577.html.

This paragraph reads to me as pretty generic text on OAM.

What specific cahnge would you like to see made to this text?

Should we, e.g., update the first sentence of the paragraph to:
    OAM can support tracing implementation or
    network configuration errors. Traceability enables to find whether a
    packet is a replica, which DetNet relay node performed the
    replication, and which segment was intended for the replica.

?

Regards,
János



> Thanks,
> Alissa
>
>>>
>>> I'm not sure what "references to new flow IDs and OAM tags should be 
>>> removed"?
>>>
>>> Could you point to the text that should be changed?
>>>
>>> Thank you!
>>> Janos
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/20/2019 4:39 PM, Lou Berger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2/20/2019 10:25 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Feb 20, 2019, at 7:17 AM, Lou Berger <[e-mail] 
>>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Alissa,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for the comments - see below.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/20/2019 9:54 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>>>>>>> Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
>>>>>>> draft-ietf-detnet-architecture-11: Discuss
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply 
>>>>>>> to all
>>>>>>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to 
>>>>>>> cut this
>>>>>>> introductory paragraph, however.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please refer to 
>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>>>>>>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>>>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-detnet-architecture/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> DISCUSS:
>>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> = Section 6 =
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "DetNet is provides a Quality of Service (QoS), and as such, 
>>>>>>> does not
>>>>>>>    directly raise any new privacy considerations."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This seems like a false statement given the possibility that 
>>>>>>> DetNet may require
>>>>>>> novel flow IDs and OAM tags that create additional 
>>>>>>> identification and
>>>>>>> correlation risk beyond existing fields used to support QoS today.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Based on the other work in the WG, I think "is not expected" is 
>>>>>> more accurate than "does not". This is based on the WG solutions 
>>>>>> for the DetNet data plane using existing IP (v4 or 6) headers or 
>>>>>> MPLS labels for flow identification.
>>>>>
>>>>> If that is the case then the references to new flow IDs and OAM 
>>>>> tags should be removed from the architecture.
>>>>
>>>> sounds reasonable.  Can you point to the specific offending text?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Lou
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Would changing to "is not expected" address your concern?
>>>>>
>>>>> Combined with the above removals, that would work for me.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Alissa
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lou
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> detnet mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet
>>>
>>
>