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

[Uma Chunduri <[e-mail]>]

In-line


-----Original Message-----
From: Ideas [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Diego R. Lopez
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2017 8:57 AM
To: Tom Herbert <[e-mail]>; Padma Pillay-Esnault <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Ideas] Your Input requested: Charter Proposal New Version

Hi,


On 7/8/2017, 17:23, "Ideas on behalf of Tom Herbert" <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:

    On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 10:20 PM, Padma Pillay-Esnault
    <[e-mail]> wrote:
    > Dear IDEAS,
    >
    > Thanks to everyone who sent their comments and feedback both on the list and
    > off the list.
    >
    > This new version should address comments from:
    > -  Michael Menth. Michael, please let us know if this revision address some
    > of your comments on clarity.
    > - Alex Clemm. Alex , please chime on the revision regarding your addition.
    > - Tom Herbert. Tom, Some of your suggestions are incorporated in this
    > version.
    > -Tom and Alex, this version include specific working that the framework is
    > modular. The set of areas to be covered has been reordered to put the basic
    > identifier protocol common infrastructure first and then the new identity
    > concept and functionalities.
    > - Georgios Karagiannis, Uma Chundhuri. Georgios, Uma, there is still an
    > ongoing discussion about the framework. This version is flexible enough to
    > accommodate the work to be done on defining the framework.
    > - Uma Chundhuri. Uma, the pub/sub reference should cover the inter-grids
    > aspect if needed.
    >
    > Please find the new version below:
    >
    > 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 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.
    >
    >
    >
    > - in addition, introduce the concept of identity-identifier split and new
    > mechanisms that let endpoints dynamically change identifiers. 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.
    >
    Padma,

    I don't think this goes far enough in terms of protections for users
    against the potential abuse of something that might be able to
    individually and persistently identify them on the Internet. First,
    it's not clear what network layer identity means in this context. I
    hope it refers to an ad hoc collection of identifiers as opposed to
    the identity of individual users or devices. In any case maybe a
    definition of identity might be in order here. Secondly, I think it
    should be stated up front that identity cannot in any way be used to
    identify individual users, it cannot be used to create a global
    database of Internet users, in no way can it be used by networks or
    governments to track or block individuals, nor can it ever be required
    for communications. That implies network layer identities cannot
    contain PII (personally identifiable information) and cannot be
    permanently assigned to users or devices (in the same spirit that
    Ethernet addresses were removed from IIDs because of privacy
    concerns).

    Thanks,
    Tom

When it comes to these concerns I’d strongly recommend to have a look at how identity attributes were exchanged and trust established within the ABFAB framework (https://tools.ietf.org/wg/abfab/)

[Uma]: Though  this is not about SSOs or application stuff, thanks for the pointer. 
                I always believed EAP has a role to play for IDy auth procedures and lot of concerns brought out here (especially related to Identity-privacy) are effectively taken care with existing mechanisms. 

Be goode,