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

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Sun, 08 October 2017 18:34 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: ideas@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ideas@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF5AE1348E9; Sun, 8 Oct 2017 11:34:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.789
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.789 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=opendkim.org header.b=AQMGiM3X; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com header.b=YMALx5nf
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 f__A4A_ffRqo; Sun, 8 Oct 2017 11:34:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D76741348E8; Sun, 8 Oct 2017 11:34:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([197.227.87.111]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v98IYD8K018137 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 8 Oct 2017 11:34:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1507487665; x=1507574065; bh=VcVuoaB3C2dfRMUyElSMQMZu5vZrzPBiNwm/I2cFkY0=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=AQMGiM3Xf+z5tkTFU6NsDYCncDGqZU+8G59edUfDX2C2gCXzS/xUrtt/CPaFJTqKw zaT++SxunVo/OOqOfK6H4CLD/XQuHy28vL8doNi5P0qvd7+XnEjUWvDGpo4L1zY9EH h49PCa3w/E0ew+Gg7MsgvySO4axy7uAvPhzModTM=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1507487665; x=1507574065; i=@elandsys.com; bh=VcVuoaB3C2dfRMUyElSMQMZu5vZrzPBiNwm/I2cFkY0=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=YMALx5nfURyP+Er17OIj2t11QYMvYsHaQvJTge4HKv45t0Q4+rBofSq3yXIBbJ3V+ ES+/6Xr1161mE/bpqWVCiOLYYyfkfaeM5IPXM0ycYu4ucBmnn5c7lOZ9pHl2UPBUh5 F5yx6oINnUDDFEf9ogvDbzPf+ztpaoENpWdmSdlE=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20171008112206.1100fa88@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2017 11:33:14 -0700
To: Padma Pillay-Esnault <padma.ietf@gmail.com>, ietf@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org, ideas@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <CAG-CQxpEb8Lcjy0M5445K4Ob+nQW15WeEooggcxpb=hToB4HZw@mail.g mail.com>
References: <150670160872.14128.2758037992338326085.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20171007163002.11c897a0@elandnews.com> <CAG-CQxpnHKtov+pj6YFL0wxnO3YX7mbLUA9uHUkVQbHqE3A1rQ@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20171008102541.11499408@elandnews.com> <CAG-CQxpEb8Lcjy0M5445K4Ob+nQW15WeEooggcxpb=hToB4HZw@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ideas/JwARNXJDzpjnISkBUyQ3HNrxOm0>
Subject: Re: [Ideas] WG Review: IDentity Enabled Networks (ideas)
X-BeenThere: ideas@ietf.org
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." <ideas.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ideas>, <mailto:ideas-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ideas/>
List-Post: <mailto:ideas@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ideas-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ideas>, <mailto:ideas-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2017 18:34:30 -0000

Hi Padma,
At 11:20 AM 08-10-2017, Padma Pillay-Esnault wrote:
>There is even text in the charter regarding this.
>
>- Analysis of the concepts of identity-identifier split and dynamic 
>identifier changes, including their implications on anonymity and 
>privacy. Explicitly, the framework must define privacy requirements 
>and how potential extensions/solutions should meet them.

Why is privacy requirements being redefined?  The IAB already has a 
RFC about that.  I have not done a search; there are probably IETF 
RFCs about that subject.

>?? Not sure what /how this is in context .... Are we still taking 
>about routing information here?

No.

>Can you clarify what you mean here by maintenance work on IPv4 
>technical specification? Again the context here is a mapping system 
>infrastructure to be used by Id/Loc protocols.

There is currently an IETF thread about that [1].

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg104717.html