Re: [Ideas] Your Input requested: Charter Proposal New Version

[Padma Pillay-Esnault <[e-mail]>]

Hello All

Here is the latest version as of 08/08/17.

Please send your comments and feedback on the list.


IDEAS: “IDentity EnAbled networkS”



Proposed Charter



Network solutions based on the concept of Identifier-Locator separation are
increasingly considered to support mobility and multi-homing across
heterogeneous access networks. Identifier-locator separation protocols
require infrastructure that allows nodes to discover the network
topological location(s) of its peer(s) for packet delivery. A common
infrastructure and protocol could be used by identifier/locator protocols
as well as network virtualization. However, additional infrastructure and
new protocol extensions are needed to address new requirements that go well
beyond the traditional discovery service and mapping of
identifier-to-location for packet delivery.



At the same time, end users require greater privacy for their networking
information and protection from outside threats, while operators demand
greater operational efficiency. Identity-enabled networks aim to enable
networking applications and services that provide a high degree of privacy
and control of end points over their networking data, coupled with greater
inherent security than provided by today’s networks.



To this end, the working group shall:

- define and develop a common mapping system, control plane, and related
protocol that provide a common solution for identifier/locator protocols
that map identifiers to locators as well other new mapping combinations as
needed, as well as network virtualization protocols that map virtual to
physical addresses



- in addition, introduce the concept of identity-identifier split and new
mechanisms that let endpoints dynamically change identifiers. The common
mapping system will include identity to identifier mappings. These new
functionalities may, for example, facilitate anonymity through obscurity
while preventing security issues that might result from abuse, ensuring
that information about actual endpoints and their location is revealed only
on a need-to-know basis.



Some examples of the problem space are:

- Common infrastructure and primitives: The lack of a common infrastructure
is a barrier for the application of common and consistent basic networking
policies. Likewise, mapping services and infrastructure that apply to
identity-identifier as well as identifier-locator mappings reduces
operational and deployment complexity.



- Access control: Unrestricted look up on an identifier may reveal
information such as the locator to eavesdroppers. Today, there is no way to
prevent the look up of an identifier with some user defined policy or finer
grain rules.



- Privacy:  The use of long-lived and public identifiers may be desirable
for looking up a peer, however it causes privacy issues as well. Indeed,
when identifier-location pairs can be looked up without restriction, flows
can be pinned by anybody to specific end systems.  The endpoint
communications should be able to change their identifier while retaining
their identity and associated policies. The use of temporary identifiers
and access control on lookups should help discourage undesired traffic and
conceal sensitive network information of end devices to eavesdroppers.



The Identity Enabled Networks (IDEAS) working group is chartered to develop
a common framework that can be used by identifier-based protocols and
provides services to address their requirements. We refer to the common
framework providing the set of services as Generic Identity Services
(GRIDS).



The working group will identify gaps and make recommendations on changes
needed for interactions between the framework and identifier-enabled
protocols.



Specifically, the IDEAS WG is chartered to work on these areas for the
modular framework:



- Definition of primitives for interworking with identifier-location split
protocols

- Identifier/locator mapping and resolution (e.g. discovery, pub/sub,
multihoming, ...)

- Registration and lifecycle management of identities and their associated
identifiers.

- Identity authentication and authorization (e.g. access to framework,
update of information for identifiers..)

- Definition and enforcement of basic networking policies (e.g. ability to
look up an identifier-locator pair, permit forwarding traffic for
particular endpoints on a per-identity basis…)

- Identity and Identifier Metadata (only fixed or slow changing, e.g. type)

- Management aspects and Data Models where appropriate.



The IDEAS WG will collaborate with other Working Groups to ensure
interoperability with LISP, HIP, ILA and other relevant work. Furthermore,
it will try to reuse technologies already developed when appropriate.



WG deliverables include:

Generic Identity Services Framework



WG sustaining/informational documents may include:

These documents may not necessarily be published, but may be maintained in
a draft form or on a collaborative Working Group wiki to support the
efforts of the Working Group and help new comers:

- Problem statement

- Use cases

- Requirements

- Applications of the architecture for use cases





Milestones

March 2018 Adopt WG draft for the Generic Identity Services framework

August 2018 WGLC for the Generic Identity Services framework

December 2018 Send Generic Identity Services framework draft to the IESG

On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Padmadevi Pillay Esnault <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Sure
>
>
>
> However, been wondering if it is best not to be so specific in the charter.
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> Padma
>
>
>
> *From:* Alexander Clemm
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 08, 2017 10:42 AM
> *To:* Padmadevi Pillay Esnault; Tom Herbert
> *Cc:* [e-mail]; Padma Pillay-Esnault
>
> *Subject:* RE: [Ideas] Your Input requested: Charter Proposal New Version
>
>
>
> OK.
>
>
>
> If we want to have a more specific list of supported mappings, it may be
> useful to mention some of those other mappings as well – by means of
> example, mappings between identifiers.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> --- Alex
>
>
>
> *From:* Padmadevi Pillay Esnault
> *Sent:* Monday, August 07, 2017 2:52 PM
> *To:* Alexander Clemm <[e-mail]>; Tom Herbert <
> [e-mail]>
> *Cc:* [e-mail]; Padma Pillay-Esnault <[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* RE: [Ideas] Your Input requested: Charter Proposal New Version
>
>
>
> Alex
>
>
>
> My understanding is that Tom did NOT ask for removing of identity concept.
>
> He asked to make the section on common infrastructure clearer with this
> sentence.
>
>
>
> I agree with you that the mappings should not be restricted to 1->n
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Padma
>
>
>
> *From:* Ideas [mailto:[e-mail] <[e-mail]>] *On
> Behalf Of *Alexander Clemm
> *Sent:* Monday, August 07, 2017 2:34 PM
> *To:* Padma Pillay-Esnault; Tom Herbert
> *Cc:* [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [Ideas] Your Input requested: Charter Proposal New Version
>
>
>
> I am not sure we should restrict ourselves to mapping between identifiers
> and locators.
>
>
>
> I would at a minimum want to include mappings between identifiers, and
> between identifiers and (for lack of a better term) groupings of
> identifiers.
>
>
>
> If we take out the identity concept, we should also rename the WG.
>
>
>
> --- Alex
>
>
>
> *From:* Ideas [mailto:[e-mail] <[e-mail]>] *On
> Behalf Of *Padma Pillay-Esnault
> *Sent:* Monday, August 07, 2017 1:28 PM
> *To:* Tom Herbert <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [Ideas] Your Input requested: Charter Proposal New Version
>
>
>
> Hi Tom
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > To this end, the working group shall:
> >
> > - define a framework for the development of an identifier/locator mapping
> > system that provides a common solution for all identifier/locator mapping
> > protocols and network virtualization.
> >
>
> Padma,
>
> I think this statement could be stronger and express that the common
> mapping system and protocols are expected output from WG. How about
> something like: "Define and develop a common mapping system, control
> plane, and related protocol that provide a common solution for
> identifier/locator protocols that map identifiers to locators, as well
> as network virtualization protocols that map virtual to physical
> addresses"
>
>
>
> Fine with me.
>
>
>
> Let's poll the list for consensus on this.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Padma
>
>
>
> Tom
>
>
>
>