Re: [Ideas] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on charter-ietf-ideas-00-00: (with COMMENT)

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>]

So, responding to Uma's response to Tom's response to my response to the
proposed charter (whew!),

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Uma Chunduri <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>         > Is a look at general security implications, in a form that
> specific
>         >framework  usages can point to, on the table for IDEAS?
>         >e
>         Spencer,
>
>         I believe there are two discrete components being championed in
> IDEAS:
>         One, is mapping system of identifier to locators and the other is
> introduction of identity mapping. The former looks much more like a routing
> or name resolution protocol, and the later would be doing identity
> management and possible collecting PII. There are obviously many security
> implications to      both parts, however I think the threats and
> sensitivity between these is quite different, i.e. hacking into the ID/loc
> mapping data base could result in misdirecting packets, hacking into
> identity store may result in loss of users' privacy.
>

Tom's response to me makes sense.


> [Uma]: Tom, you summarized well. I would note there is interconnected
> aspect to these 2 items w.r.t security. Identity AUTH can inherently bring
> security (and if needed privacy) to Identifier/Location mapping and
> strengthen that area tremondoesly.
> However, Identity privacy itself has  to be tackled and there are existing
> well defined mechanisms for that as discussed earlier in the IDEAS list
> (pointer from Diego, is a great example).
> When we described identity and it's uses here https://tools.ietf.org/html/
> draft-ccm-ideas-identity-use-cases-01#section-7 , we noted threat
> analysis aspect in Section 7 and was reflected in charter too.
>

Uma's response to Tom makes sense.


>         These seem fundamentally different so security considerations
> should probably be considered independently of each other.
>
> [Uma]: Different but interdependent on some aspects as mentioned above.
>

So, what I'm not understanding, is that there are two work items, and only
one framework deliverable. Is the intention that the identifier/locator
mapping system and the identity mapping system are different enough to have
different security considerations, but are so tightly interwoven that
neither is usable without the other, or with any other mapping system
separately, so it makes sense to lump them into one framework?

Again, either answer is OK, but if I'm going to ask, now would be the time
:-)

Spencer

        Tom
>
>         > (It doesn't have to be, for me to ballot Yes, but I did have to
> ask,
>