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

Robert Moskowitz <> Tue, 10 October 2017 19:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B44A134210; Tue, 10 Oct 2017 12:35:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jhSPsJPvXRMK; Tue, 10 Oct 2017 12:35:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B883013307B; Tue, 10 Oct 2017 12:35:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B114621A2; Tue, 10 Oct 2017 15:35:53 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id Q+zaSjb4tkIT; Tue, 10 Oct 2017 15:35:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 29D0462163; Tue, 10 Oct 2017 15:35:35 -0400 (EDT)
To: Stephen Farrell <>,
References: <> <>
From: Robert Moskowitz <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 15:35:31 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------5B064D69EBFA925BA1060558"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Ideas] WG Review: IDentity Enabled Networks (ideas)
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." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 19:35:57 -0000

Stephen, and others...

I am on Jewish Holidays since Sept 20th and I will finally be past them 
on Oct 16th.  I do have some time between the actual Holidays to see how 
far I have fallen behind.  That said, I will attempt to address a couple 
concerns here on the IETF list for the broader audience.

I am also concerned that some ID/Loc technologies seem to allow for PII 
to be enshrined in ID.  I have always been against that.  I have always 
seen a strictly one-way mapping that could take a human PII and find a 
ID for that.  Phone number lookup technologies based on LDAP have always 
supplied this.  Nothing new here, if done right. Human PII based ID 
should not be encouraged in this work, but is more the feature of an 
underlying ID/Loc technology (note, HIP does NOT do this).

Thus this is out of scope of IDEAS.  And, as I am funded to work on 
IDEAS, I will vigorously work against anything that expands what we 
already have (and maybe get this out of in ID/Loc tech that has it).

This is about machines, and processes, have ID/Loc through some 
underlying technology (e.g. HIP, ILA, LISP) to have a common ID 
discovery and Loc back to ID (for things like HTTP redirects).  As the 
charter says, strong access control will be designed in (but of course 
no assurance of implementing).  Note that HIP has a course access 
control in its RVS service in that an RVS COULD ignore a redirect from 
an Initiator nore registered to the RVS.  But we need finer grain access 
control and, well it is in the charter.

Why do this?  ID/Loc has a number of use cases, but is limited by the 
lack of discovery services (well, HIP can use DNS) and reverse discovery 
(but this is from Loc to get ID and only if authorized). We feel that 
adding in what we have learned limits ID/Loc will broaden its use.


On 09/29/2017 02:31 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> As currently described, I oppose creation of this working
> group on the basis that it enables and seemingly encourages
> embedding identifiers for humans as addresses. Doing so
> would have significant privacy downsides, would enable
> new methods for censorship and discrimination, and could
> be very hard to mitigate should one wish to help protect
> people's privacy, as I think is current IETF policy.
> If the work precluded the use of any identifiers that
> strongly map to humans then I'd be ok with it being done
> as it'd then only be a waste of resources. But I don't
> know how that could be enforced so I think it'd be better
> to just not do this work at all.
> S.
> On 29/09/17 17:13, The IESG wrote:
>> A new IETF WG has been proposed in the Routing Area. The IESG has not made
>> any determination yet. The following draft charter was submitted, and is
>> provided for informational purposes only. Please send your comments to the
>> IESG mailing list ( by 2017-10-09.
>> IDentity Enabled Networks (ideas)
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Current status: Proposed WG
>> Chairs:
>>    Padma Pillay-Esnault <>
>> Assigned Area Director:
>>    Alvaro Retana <>
>> Routing Area Directors:
>>    Alia Atlas <>
>>    Alvaro Retana <>
>>    Deborah Brungard <>
>> Mailing list:
>>    Address:
>>    To subscribe:
>>    Archive:
>> Group page:
>> Charter:
>> Network solutions based on the concept of Identifier-Locator separation are
>> increasingly considered to support mobility, overlay networking for
>> virtualization 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. Identifier-locator
>> protocols are also useful for additional services involving dynamic
>> association of a name to a set of network addresses - these include dynamic
>> multicast, cloud service anycast and context-aware IoT queries.
>> The IDEAS WG is chartered to produce a framework document that defines the
>> expected behavior of a mapping system across the multiple existing use cases.
>>   The framework will aim at a homogeneous behavior across use cases, and it
>> will call out specific trade-offs that may be considered in the development
>> of solutions.  We refer to the framework providing the set of services as
>> Generic Identity Services (GRIDS).
>> Some of the areas that must be considered when developing the framework
>> include:
>> - Description of interfaces for different protocols to interact with the
>> framework (e.g. id-loc split protocols, management protocols, etc)
>> - Description of identifier/locator mapping resolution and mapping update
>> (e.g. discovery, pub/sub, multi-homing, ...)
>> - Registration and lifecycle management of identities and their associated
>> identifiers.
>> - Identity authentication and authorization (e.g. access to framework, update
>> of information for identifiers..)
>> - Description of required basic network policies and policy enforcement needs
>> (e.g. ability to look up an identifier-locator pair, permit forwarding
>> traffic for particular endpoints on a per-identity basis, etc.)
>> - 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.
>> - Operational and deployment considerations
>> The IDEAS WG will closely coordinate with the LISP and HIP WGs (and with
>> others as needed) in order to keep them well-informed of the progress.  Any
>> extension to existing protocols that is identified while developing the
>> framework document will be carried out in the responsible WG for that
>> protocol; any extension work to be done in this WG will require re-chartering.
>> WG deliverables include:
>> (1) Generic Identity Services Framework
>> (2) Other WG sustaining/informational documents may include:
>> - Problem statement
>> - Use cases
>> - Requirements for identifier/locator mapping and resolution
>> - Requirements for identity authentication and authorization service (for
>> GRIDS) - Applications of the architecture for use cases - Threat model
>> document
>> These documents will not be published as RFCs, but will be maintained in a
>> draft form or on a collaborative Working Group wiki to support the efforts of
>> the Working Group and help new comers.
>> Milestones
>> January 2018 Adopt WG draft for the Generic Identity Services framework
>> July 2018 WGLC for the Generic Identity Services framework
>> September 2018 Send Generic Identity Services framework draft to the IESG
>> November 2018 Recharter or Close
> _______________________________________________
> Ideas mailing list