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

[Sam Sun <[e-mail]>]

Padma,

The latest version looks good! Thanks for putting it all together.

A couple of questions need a bit clarification:

1) in the first item in "the IDEAS WG is chartered to work on...", what 
it means by "... interworking with identifier-location split protocols"?

2) In the deliverables, could we include some of chartered tasks here? 
For example,

    Requirements for identifier/locator mapping and resolution

    Requirements for identity authentication and authorization service 
(for GRIDS).


All the best,
Sam


On 8/9/17 12:35 AM, Padma Pillay-Esnault wrote:
> Hello All
>
> Here is the latest version as of 08/08/17.
>
> Please send your comments and feedback on the list.
>
>
> 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 and develop a common mapping system, control plane, and 
> related protocol that provide a common solution for identifier/locator 
> protocols that map identifiers to locators as well other new mapping 
> combinations as needed, as well as network virtualization protocols 
> that map virtual to physical addresses
>
> - in addition, introduce the concept of identity-identifier split and 
> new mechanisms that let endpoints dynamically change identifiers. The 
> common mapping system will include identity to identifier mappings. 
> 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.
>
> Some examples of the problem space are:
>
> - Common infrastructure and primitives: The lack of a common 
> infrastructure is a barrier for the application of common and 
> consistent basic networking policies. Likewise, mapping services and 
> infrastructure that apply to identity-identifier as well as 
> identifier-locator mappings reduces operational and deployment complexity.
>
> - Access control: Unrestricted look up on an identifier may reveal 
> information such as the locator to eavesdroppers. Today, there is no 
> way to prevent the look up of an identifier with some user defined 
> policy or finer grain rules.
>
> - Privacy:  The use of long-lived and public identifiers may be 
> desirable for looking up a peer, however it causes privacy issues as 
> well. Indeed, when identifier-location pairs can be looked up without 
> restriction, flows can be pinned by anybody to specific end systems.  
> The endpoint communications should be able to change their identifier 
> while retaining their identity and associated policies. The use of 
> temporary identifiers and access control on lookups should help 
> discourage undesired traffic and conceal sensitive network information 
> of end devices to eavesdroppers.
>
> The Identity Enabled Networks (IDEAS) working group is chartered to 
> develop a common framework that can be used by identifier-based 
> protocols and provides services to address their requirements. We 
> refer to the common framework providing the set of services as Generic 
> Identity Services (GRIDS).
>
> The working group will identify gaps and make recommendations on 
> changes needed for interactions between the framework and 
> identifier-enabled protocols.
>
> Specifically, the IDEAS WG is chartered to work on these areas for the 
> modular framework:
>
> - Definition of primitives for interworking with identifier-location 
> split protocols
>
> - Identifier/locator mapping and resolution (e.g. discovery, pub/sub, 
> multihoming, ...)
>
> - Registration and lifecycle management of identities and their 
> associated identifiers.
>
> - Identity authentication and authorization (e.g. access to framework, 
> update of information for identifiers..)
>
> - Definition and enforcement of basic networking policies (e.g. 
> ability to look up an identifier-locator pair, permit forwarding 
> traffic for particular endpoints on a per-identity basis…)
>
> - Identity and Identifier Metadata (only fixed or slow changing, e.g. 
> type)
>
> - Management aspects and Data Models where appropriate.
>
> The IDEAS WG will collaborate with other Working Groups to ensure 
> interoperability with LISP, HIP, ILA and other relevant work. 
> Furthermore, it will try to reuse technologies already developed when 
> appropriate.
>
> WG deliverables include:
>
> Generic Identity Services Framework
>
> WG sustaining/informational documents may include:
>
> These documents may not necessarily be published, but may 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:
>
> - Problem statement
>
> - Use cases
>
> - Requirements
>
> - Applications of the architecture for use cases
>
> Milestones
>
> March 2018 Adopt WG draft for the Generic Identity Services framework
>
> August 2018 WGLC for the Generic Identity Services framework
>
> December 2018 Send Generic Identity Services framework draft to the IESG
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Padmadevi Pillay Esnault 
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     Sure
>
>     However, been wondering if it is best not to be so specific in the
>     charter.
>
>     Thoughts?
>
>     Padma
>
>     *From:*Alexander Clemm
>     *Sent:* Tuesday, August 08, 2017 10:42 AM
>     *To:* Padmadevi Pillay Esnault; Tom Herbert
>     *Cc:* [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>; Padma Pillay-Esnault
>
>
>     *Subject:* RE: [Ideas] Your Input requested: Charter Proposal New
>     Version
>
>     OK.
>
>     If we want to have a more specific list of supported mappings, it
>     may be useful to mention some of those other mappings as well – by
>     means of example, mappings between identifiers.
>
>     Thanks
>
>     --- Alex
>
>     *From:*Padmadevi Pillay Esnault
>     *Sent:* Monday, August 07, 2017 2:52 PM
>     *To:* Alexander Clemm <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Tom Herbert
>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     *Cc:* [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>; Padma Pillay-Esnault
>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     *Subject:* RE: [Ideas] Your Input requested: Charter Proposal New
>     Version
>
>     Alex
>
>     My understanding is that Tom did NOT ask for removing of identity
>     concept.
>
>     He asked to make the section on common infrastructure clearer with
>     this sentence.
>
>     I agree with you that the mappings should not be restricted to 1->n
>
>     Thanks
>
>     Padma
>
>     *From:*Ideas [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of
>     *Alexander Clemm
>     *Sent:* Monday, August 07, 2017 2:34 PM
>     *To:* Padma Pillay-Esnault; Tom Herbert
>     *Cc:* [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     *Subject:* Re: [Ideas] Your Input requested: Charter Proposal New
>     Version
>
>     I am not sure we should restrict ourselves to mapping between
>     identifiers and locators.
>
>     I would at a minimum want to include mappings between identifiers,
>     and between identifiers and (for lack of a better term) groupings
>     of identifiers.
>
>     If we take out the identity concept, we should also rename the WG.
>
>     --- Alex
>
>     *From:*Ideas [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *Padma
>     Pillay-Esnault
>     *Sent:* Monday, August 07, 2017 1:28 PM
>     *To:* Tom Herbert <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     *Cc:* [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     *Subject:* Re: [Ideas] Your Input requested: Charter Proposal New
>     Version
>
>     Hi Tom
>
>         >
>         > 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.
>         >
>
>         Padma,
>
>         I think this statement could be stronger and express that the
>         common
>         mapping system and protocols are expected output from WG. How
>         about
>         something like: "Define and develop a common mapping system,
>         control
>         plane, and related protocol that provide a common solution for
>         identifier/locator protocols that map identifiers to locators,
>         as well
>         as network virtualization protocols that map virtual to physical
>         addresses"
>
>     Fine with me.
>
>     Let's poll the list for consensus on this.
>
>     Thanks
>
>     Padma
>
>         Tom
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ideas mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ideas