IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-dhc-dynamic-shared-v4allocation-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Thu, 28 May 2015 17:57 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79D921A0231; Thu, 28 May 2015 10:57:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.21
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 I_VNIC4h89AA; Thu, 28 May 2015 10:57:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 879571A00FE; Thu, 28 May 2015 10:57:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F996BF01; Thu, 28 May 2015 18:57:38 +0100 (IST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bCbp8zz1ByrP; Thu, 28 May 2015 18:57:37 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [10.87.48.73] (unknown [86.42.20.233]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 21CCDBEFC; Thu, 28 May 2015 18:57:36 +0100 (IST)
Message-ID: <5567570D.9080208@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 18:57:33 +0100
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Christian Huitema <huitema@microsoft.com>, "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>, "sthaug@nethelp.no" <sthaug@nethelp.no>
References: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1CAF5DA3@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <55670179.8030400@cs.tcd.ie> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1CAF5EC1@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <20150528.141105.74661164.sthaug@nethelp.no> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1CAF6142@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <55670889.30503@cs.tcd.ie> <DM2PR0301MB06551796B9F2139144A69036A8CA0@DM2PR0301MB0655.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <DM2PR0301MB06551796B9F2139144A69036A8CA0@DM2PR0301MB0655.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
OpenPGP: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/MqDUIcRdiprcJyAw23HrhWoo5uk>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 28 May 2015 11:22:42 -0700
Cc: "draft-ietf-dhc-dynamic-shared-v4allocation.ad@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dhc-dynamic-shared-v4allocation.ad@ietf.org>, "dhc-chairs@ietf.org" <dhc-chairs@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-dhc-dynamic-shared-v4allocation@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dhc-dynamic-shared-v4allocation@ietf.org>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-dhc-dynamic-shared-v4allocation.shepherd@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dhc-dynamic-shared-v4allocation.shepherd@ietf.org>, "Ted.Lemon@nominum.com" <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-dhc-dynamic-shared-v4allocation-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 17:57:43 -0000


On 28/05/15 18:27, Christian Huitema wrote:
> On May 28, 2015 5:23 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote: 
>>
>> On 28/05/15 13:19, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote:
>>> Note also that there is work going on in the DHC WG to address privacy
>>> issues - see draft-ietf-dhc-anonymity-profile-00. And one of the
>>> authors (the primary author) is from Microsoft so I am sure this is on
>>> their radar.
>>
>> So just to be clear: the reason I'm asking about this is mainly that I want to be
>> sure that this draft doesn't make deploying the privacy one harder/impossible.
> 
> How about adding something like that to the security considerations:
> 
> The purpose of the "client identifier option" is to ensure that the same client retains the same parameters over time. This interferes with the client's privacy, as it allows the server to track the client. Clients can manage their privacy exposure by controlling the value of the client identifier, trading off stability of parameter allocation for privacy. We expect that guidance on this tradeoff will be discussed in a future version of [draft-ietf-dhc-anonymity-profile].

That'd work for me. Authors?

S.


> -- Christian Huitema
> 
> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email