[hiprg] A question of the identity privacy

Dacheng Zhang <zhangdacheng@huawei.com> Thu, 04 February 2010 04:11 UTC

Return-Path: <zhangdacheng@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: hiprg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hiprg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E4B628C0E8 for <hiprg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 20:11:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.495
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6Xp-30Dqse+F for <hiprg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 20:11:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from szxga04-in.huawei.com (unknown [119.145.14.67]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01EBA28C0F2 for <hiprg@irtf.org>; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 20:11:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (szxga04-in [172.24.2.12]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0KXA001RCUCAGD@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for hiprg@irtf.org; Thu, 04 Feb 2010 12:12:10 +0800 (CST)
Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0KXA0021EUCA93@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for hiprg@irtf.org; Thu, 04 Feb 2010 12:12:10 +0800 (CST)
Received: from z00133208 ([10.111.13.7]) by szxml06-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0KXA00H6YUC8OE@szxml06-in.huawei.com> for hiprg@irtf.org; Thu, 04 Feb 2010 12:12:10 +0800 (CST)
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 12:12:08 +0800
From: Dacheng Zhang <zhangdacheng@huawei.com>
In-reply-to: <7CC566635CFE364D87DC5803D4712A6C4C1F48A6F2@XCH-NW-10V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
To: hiprg@irtf.org
Message-id: <006101caa550$38c6a670$070d6f0a@china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
Content-type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Thread-index: AcqkvzfUxyx0kj4cRX2bColLb5teFQALYWGgABhfY6A=
References: <7CC566635CFE364D87DC5803D4712A6C4C1F48A6F2@XCH-NW-10V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
Subject: [hiprg] A question of the identity privacy
X-BeenThere: hiprg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Host Identity Protocol \(HIP\) Research Group" <hiprg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hiprg>, <mailto:hiprg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/hiprg>
List-Post: <mailto:hiprg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hiprg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hiprg>, <mailto:hiprg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 04:11:39 -0000

Hello, everyone:

I just read a paper “BLIND: A Complete Identity Protection Framework for
End-points” which proposes a solution to protect the privacy of HITs of
both communicating hosts. I believe that the privacy protection of HITs is
desired in many scenarios. But, I am a bit concerned whether BLIND is
suitable in a client/server model. Normally, a server should public its
access information to DNS, and it may not make a big sense to protect the
identity and location privacy of a server. Apart from Blind, I didn't find
any other papers about the identity privacy issues with HIP. 

Here, I have three questions. First, do you think the identity privacy
protection can be desired for HIP? If it is, do you think it is a good idea
to propose a simplified protocol as a complement of BLIND, which only
protects the identity privacy of the initiator? In addition, do you know
whether there is any other related work? 

Cheers

Dacheng