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

Padma Pillay-Esnault <padma.ietf@gmail.com> Sun, 08 October 2017 18:20 UTC

Return-Path: <padma.ietf@gmail.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 51A741348C6; Sun, 8 Oct 2017 11:20:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 rdnkihndamCj; Sun, 8 Oct 2017 11:20:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-x22a.google.com (mail-wm0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c: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 A40F21348C0; Sun, 8 Oct 2017 11:20:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id m72so17381072wmc.1; Sun, 08 Oct 2017 11:20:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=MUOJKYEsNnrKWS7KfjYLhQV0Lr+4SLgZIACKr+8Ov40=; b=H76y7g+M86ai3eV8L9WEMt5JFIK+i/T+EmPo96cZ/aitjq8MjlJfgUBrvZ81V3nWVJ E7AVmDD8ebOxIAMTFVtD1N9TuaAf8YQg2FXPBZOIyrJiZrV5DCHgBEXx70qBdizbiwBI NZvj9eW/LH9qSRM1CuCh9EjIg1MmJWx1otiQIe+QuXszuvA4kbjG/LAeFD8jxp7ecBNZ dKigW0XbrnALy7+pep0aImqzMK+XWDc7dH2jZ9OVkkX6pA43893wipW9ETo3mJAM7myZ woVFUljb+w3kB4n0Oa1yGosbwKiVG5JiemfIFHxdNd85ud6VL+3xDutVKn+6ZNomZxY1 chug==
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=MUOJKYEsNnrKWS7KfjYLhQV0Lr+4SLgZIACKr+8Ov40=; b=iQa00cdPkKve8lxUurZfeF4puFJSfNpz71mEgeVsZzLttUWj74maBs0es11hCqoGHr Qn9PoG2+ewNvB9mNnbn9t9BvmC3HK+2LKB5J04ZgMY75Kw6NcfwIf8/mzAl1sNugpRTH 5wI/WUUTwJULy916yJ9h4BG6mWLtwB2icu6VFcGiSgBTS17ADX7/c+dJhAopa3o7GtTi e++ZG5cXCitSHg4rq35+CxwKdT3b/DM+OiRR/IPCbepVii8ONCUfQX5EtgVDoHuIiKTO ekxa9mg4RPr6iUmNOTd+twIN/844m7YpIc0RMs2Kos72o6URiTY1k47aJuIJU+uT/nKm yb7g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaXyKpDh4y7t8wjq/EXvGkDuQ6XhJyceDnfvBKhekz6ILQxZkgbw HXcWULop5EWIguhxR4R/HeiEoSrQIrS5OzT7Hm1jOQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QAOp1613phADUbYRmuSyEm+JV0hPsU9mRGDuzkOxB7WT4jsdhthOxlm1rLNAEjTS7jpePxUhw5+gxWtO236LqU=
X-Received: by 10.223.164.206 with SMTP id h14mr6774638wrb.221.1507486823054; Sun, 08 Oct 2017 11:20:23 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.173.86 with HTTP; Sun, 8 Oct 2017 11:20:22 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20171008102541.11499408@elandnews.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>
From: Padma Pillay-Esnault <padma.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 11:20:22 -0700
Message-ID: <CAG-CQxpEb8Lcjy0M5445K4Ob+nQW15WeEooggcxpb=hToB4HZw@mail.gmail.com>
To: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>, ideas@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045f16a2978464055b0d200e"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ideas/QqVjWu1oOVWd6e1OqZOnSHJn_-o>
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 18:20:27 -0000

On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 10:55 AM, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>; wrote:

> Hi Padma,
> At 06:38 PM 07-10-2017, Padma Pillay-Esnault wrote:
>
>> Not sure if you have been following the discussions the last few days and
>> emails today.  The charter which is under review is not trying to create an
>> embedded identifier to track users.
>>
>
> I caught up with the thread about this proposed working group.  The
> (proposed) charter might say that it is not trying to create an embedded
> identifier to track users.  What if that was a side effect of this work?
>

I believe this has already been discussed on the thread. But here it is
again, the id.loc protocols are in perspective here and they use ephemeral
identifiers, can obsfuscate them or encrypt them as Dino pointed out
earlier.

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.

- Security analysis of the complete system, including authentication,
authorization requirements and protection of any metadata.


> I took a look at the ideas problem statement draft.  I can understand that
> there may be a need for identification.  However, it is up to the companies
> or 501(c)(3) status organizations to make their case for that.


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


>
>
Will this proposed working group do any maintenance work on IPv4 technical
> specifications?  Will the output of this proposed working group be used for
> future work on IPv4 technical specifications?
>
> 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.

Padma


> The draft in question is being updated and the authors are doing for
>> clarification.
>>
>
> Ok.
>
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy
>