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

Uma Chunduri <uma.chunduri@huawei.com> Thu, 05 October 2017 03:24 UTC

Return-Path: <uma.chunduri@huawei.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 565FF134525; Wed, 4 Oct 2017 20:24:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.22
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.22 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 e8TG1TEbbQH2; Wed, 4 Oct 2017 20:24:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3CDFE134521; Wed, 4 Oct 2017 20:24:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml701-cah.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id DWW36649; Thu, 05 Oct 2017 03:24:23 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from SJCEML702-CHM.china.huawei.com (10.208.112.38) by lhreml701-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.42) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.301.0; Thu, 5 Oct 2017 04:24:22 +0100
Received: from SJCEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.215]) by SJCEML702-CHM.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.207]) with mapi id 14.03.0301.000; Wed, 4 Oct 2017 20:24:19 -0700
From: Uma Chunduri <uma.chunduri@huawei.com>
To: Joel Halpern Direct <jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com>, Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
CC: "ideas@ietf.org" <ideas@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Ideas] WG Review: IDentity Enabled Networks (ideas)
Thread-Index: AQHTPUTpHf/1VBiG/k6j1YoUSQ9obKLUrfeA//+xkRCAAI/FAIAAAIUAgAAA9AD//6NuoA==
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2017 03:24:18 +0000
Message-ID: <25B4902B1192E84696414485F572685401A873A3@SJCEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com>
References: <150670160872.14128.2758037992338326085.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <778d5504-ba4f-d418-7b20-356353bb0fb2@cs.tcd.ie> <D7D4AEE9-3BD0-4C8F-BCC6-7185AF7D37BA@netapp.com> <9C663B18-21CC-4A16-8B26-7994B12B1DC5@piuha.net> <25B4902B1192E84696414485F572685401A872DE@SJCEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com> <33f100a0-5114-269c-adb4-5db6edb1fd4d@joelhalpern.com> <20171005013730.GC96685@kduck.kaduk.org> <55bf5ae5-848a-ba81-f76b-14aaefdad2bf@joelhalpern.com>
In-Reply-To: <55bf5ae5-848a-ba81-f76b-14aaefdad2bf@joelhalpern.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.212.245.43]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A0C0203.59D5A5E7.00E8, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=169.254.3.215, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 6c3af99f58e1567df8b7e11a874c70d8
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ideas/dbs6WQsbrdqpbwrMCx7C0QhDNmY>
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: Thu, 05 Oct 2017 03:24:27 -0000

Hi Joel,


	>Yes, authentication is necessary to modify the entries.  (Whether one should be authenticated before reading varies from case to case.)
	>But authentication does not require a separate identity.  Exactly what it requires depends upon how the system is constructed.

IMHO, provider based AUTH is needed in lot of cases if we really want to build a solid system which enables mobility.
I responded to Jari, who is a pioneer and who helped spec out one of the best AUTH methods  & systems successfully deployed ever with his https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4187 
(but he did it for another most successful SDO, with all constructs like Pseudonyms and fast-re-auth-ids) didn't see the need for the same here.
May be as you indicated there is something missing in the charter that didn't reflect the need. 

--
Uma C.