Re: [Ideas] Fwd: Re: WG Review: IDentity Enabled Networks (ideas)

Padma Pillay-Esnault <> Thu, 05 October 2017 07:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C1B313336A; Thu, 5 Oct 2017 00:04:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hyuLTyPVHfrw; Thu, 5 Oct 2017 00:04:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E968132D17; Thu, 5 Oct 2017 00:04:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id u138so155603wmu.5; Thu, 05 Oct 2017 00:04:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Haje3jl2eOptJj0z9ZNzqQRxLx+aJq9cBqD58734Fck=; b=lEE0LjFOeFSnptF8a3OnseulqFPTtWkaUdut9nqdfCmaX8alSxw4WOs9iJShKj8ZS/ N73oOhhO4kqOnbXuaz4hpPRn5SvK4qImXkG3d+VenAm8nMp0HhJvKej8DsyeCO7UOIcU 91xZ9S6sYTkg6Xq5XqYNFsLaFfC8evMiX0X9uVoDAzczFWgn+kdwbNcwcH9Ejq88v6Rm 6mpKJfoPl6msIYccV01s0G7ZjZ7mItc9EVjTjYXjvqFgs75smOmK2mhxozp2SZLspvb2 K1giu7O3L3QdmlLvoqLTMxcbmzYbd22jugy+qkZJzEDRCcVqajLcRXlRAkuffoy3s+e7 N0sA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Haje3jl2eOptJj0z9ZNzqQRxLx+aJq9cBqD58734Fck=; b=GI2IfsnuyIu4tI/2e6+mrJGdUXvAI+bu3mTLktag73ooj2Fwx/XjLX90zvoMJpmpfS w13MnjYWru50ELlxJtslf7IjyHR+wOFMsmKVdB4iyM+OQW+vF/4JKTfWzAaYWmygqAGl 6Fm/Z/DIM6HodfzM3hxTYCGj7l8VdT+pOj97a7FjTM93OwhPn5eVPw2AZzzGY6DVZI5+ /5KZ6qvrBuPly9PuI2nh4T1mJtARv71SHeCyD05Q5yOixEqN32KHpjSqxCM90MqDpH7v npC7NVm2XSf1TW5SIkaVV2qRWpI1JaPknu9nMaRBlTGoENEbka9AanVnMkIh16OnQE1e 6n1g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHPjjUjv0MlqfumdxsGmtitfPem6ot/rRB5OoWN6hIxRzAvg3zU4ZH4K RqhIp7HxRPZZbsnvxnfbXL3GiCDx+Wu70cVdiPU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QCfXUnCsBaeqqfsVm0B62rm5N32j9TKsBXU+U6YveDNLxTN6ZoQGEmh37Qc327AlEVZiNNLnRvIGnrPIDjvojE=
X-Received: by with SMTP id p1mr15950371wmd.68.1507187090953; Thu, 05 Oct 2017 00:04:50 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 5 Oct 2017 00:04:50 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
From: Padma Pillay-Esnault <>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2017 00:04:50 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: Erik Nordmark <>
Cc: Christian Huitema <>, IETF Discussion Mailing List <>,
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11469d402a9adc055ac7577d"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Ideas] Fwd: Re: WG Review: IDentity Enabled Networks (ideas)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussions relating to the development, clarification, and implementation of control-plane infrastructures and functionalities in ID enabled networks." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2017 07:04:54 -0000

> I think there is also an aspect of "tracked by whom" which needs to be
> considered.
> <Padma> Perhaps it would be worthwhile to clarify this in the charter.

> Today a user is likely to have different concerns about being tracked by
> e.g., Facebook or Google when the are logged in the their account then
> being track by a 3rd party such as an ISP or nation state. In the same way
> an (industrial) IoT device might need to be tracked by the owner of that
> device, without it being trackable by a 3rd party.
> There might be an implicit assumption in the IDEAS work that there will be
> a globally id->loc database readable by all, the same way we think of the
> global DNS. But I think that this would be overly limiting and push us into
> a black or white privacy vs. functionality discussion.

> Elsewhere I see IETF protocols like EVPN which is used to advertise
> (factory assigned and permanent) Ethernet MAC addresses in BGP, which is
> global. However, the way that protocol is deployed the distribution of the
> EVPN routes are constrained (by BGP configuration) to the domain which
> should have access to such information. The notion of having a
> distribution/lookup/mapping technology which is capable of being global,
> i.e., not tied to technology, but where the information sharing is
> restricted by policy makes a lot of sense to me. This policy could be some
> notion of closed user groups.
> <Padma>
Yes the point was to restrict information to eavesdroppers or share with
need to know.

> Thus I think we should collectivity look at a combination of approaches
> which includes the MP-TCP-like locator agility with its privacy protection
> and also cryptographically strong identifiers in IDEAS with privacy
> protection designed in from day one.
> <Padma> Agree

> My 2 cents,
>    Erik