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

Hi Alisa,
I agree with your observation that the reporting of the location of
replication, duplicate elimination and the order preservation functions
within a DetNet domain presents the new security concern and may be the
threat to the privacy of data. To address your concern, may I propose the
following text:
   To protect against unauthorized sources trying to obtain DetNet network
information,
   e.g., location of replication, elimination, or packet order preservation
functions,
   it is RECOMMENDED that DetNet implementations provide a means
   of checking the source addresses of queries against an access list
before accepting
   them.

We'll have a more detailed analysis of the new security threats possible
resulting from specific to DetNet OAM functions in the DetNet OAM draft
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mirsky-detnet-oam/>.

Best regards,
Greg

On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 10:08 AM Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:

> Hi János,
>
>
> On Mar 25, 2019, at 12:16 PM, János Farkas <janos.farkas@ericsson.com>
> 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.
>
> 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:
>
> "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.  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.”
>
>
> 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 <lberger@labn.net> 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 listdetnet@ietf.orghttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> detnet mailing list
> detnet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet
>