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

Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> Mon, 09 October 2017 17:38 UTC

Return-Path: <tom@herbertland.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 A1B6813472F for <ideas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Oct 2017 10:38:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=herbertland-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 nDF3vRcGQWhr for <ideas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Oct 2017 10:38:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x22a.google.com (mail-qk0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1653113472B for <ideas@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Oct 2017 10:38:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id n5so22059682qke.11 for <ideas@ietf.org>; Mon, 09 Oct 2017 10:38:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herbertland-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=LSRLfpMSKVmMPxLCpoA4iUGF2AfRjwUK14rOE0ymkC4=; b=h2GoPojjkkVQko4juY7oq75hjHRnN4P2KqDVHQx1Fv6uUmfeo5wUv4QigULgp3mxAr X5noYXPNnOA9UGOztdDRprXEGnqH+5gPUoQMuwULYv1c6bRW7AHAne35fFmURar1SzrH B+fwRZIPtIYiGrVi7M6ko6L0TpvmawE3zrDq+Wv7TSz+QSSEofvMmgjMABWw4pqFTsvq /FMiRh02r5uwH7f9zMbc0bYchPa/CeFSD800W2Ach3so5fSVkSaeQ9nwmixtvGnPiHub 83c74s+5drZSZXkXeWJnlgPmUGdsX4FUji4z4B+X6bo12m1VxSorgcQDIjzLpld6GyjG 3EBw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=LSRLfpMSKVmMPxLCpoA4iUGF2AfRjwUK14rOE0ymkC4=; b=IYbd77LL7pSMLVYDNBgD98OA9YO3JuEvTtmB8DB4wlu82wiMLoKsFzgONYlt0/tHFN 3eTFYbkY47At0VnO29/+w0ObF1PbR5qAtOtzxQmr3BHBnAJtk/0wSzJtWuFqLb2yc51N Wd4V+D2pJHJEYkBwCy/gR6fIsJIYqb86V/zx5cryFWLeqPJVsZuLryMmaTwdQwekYOcQ 6K2lknPVLyjN0IReye2Cz9YIKlVbebHRWpACBD1wpV435ZGLyuEgf3dEMWjXOX9QXsOg C9pKUx7/ssWWtBS0ugSU6XwbbG2mMqf9tH9jEOPZgTG8x3bIV/QA6n0w4BcNMCu+XpNk zLpg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaXXFMWakAHgpAECFOOz8yEmIy8kU13lYOTvKyYr17R15BO/2btz IHYUT3ePNqEtpfl/LOSOziAedZ0wZkRewcodmD7Nxg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QDjgzfWv7FcBl6l+oJJfeJ0psp4KfzjfO3NVtCne1toKNtt/IQ/4k2nLBU+AIfHWLsDsc7lPZl31wql/WJcHWo=
X-Received: by 10.55.113.67 with SMTP id m64mr9589376qkc.51.1507570684216; Mon, 09 Oct 2017 10:38:04 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.237.48.144 with HTTP; Mon, 9 Oct 2017 10:38:03 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <25B4902B1192E84696414485F572685401A87E81@SJCEML701-CHM.china.huawei.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> <6.2.5.6.2.20171008112206.1100fa88@elandnews.com> <25B4902B1192E84696414485F572685401A87E81@SJCEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com>
From: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 10:38:03 -0700
Message-ID: <CALx6S342Zq15nvoxWxsAbeW=mb==QKcpOnbmEVmc_i-oEwBNRw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Uma Chunduri <uma.chunduri@huawei.com>
Cc: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>, "ideas@ietf.org" <ideas@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, Padma Pillay-Esnault <padma.ietf@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ideas/NV973M0lHRh99uRjQ11c9imk1IU>
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: Mon, 09 Oct 2017 17:38:07 -0000

On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Uma Chunduri <uma.chunduri@huawei.com>; wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Some reponses in-line [Uma]:
>
> ------------
>
>                 >>- 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.
>
> [Uma]: I am not sure what do you mean by "Privacy requirements redefined".  Today in mapping systems LOC information is not private, meaning anybody can access this information.

I don't believe that is true. There are many examples of deployments
that have a private mapping system which is not accessible by just
anyone, For instance, in multi tenant virtualization it is imperative
that tenants are not able to access the mapping system-- if they were
then the whole concept of virtual network isolation starts to breaks
done. Mapping systems are already by protected using ACLs,
authentication, network isolation, etc.

Tom