Re: [Ideas] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on charter-ietf-ideas-00-00: (with COMMENT)

[Uma Chunduri <[e-mail]>]

	> Is a look at general security implications, in a form that specific 
	>framework  usages can point to, on the table for IDEAS?
	>e
	Spencer,

	I believe there are two discrete components being championed in IDEAS:
	One, is mapping system of identifier to locators and the other is introduction of identity mapping. The former looks much more like a routing or name resolution protocol, and the later would be doing identity management and possible collecting PII. There are obviously many security implications to 	both parts, however I think the threats and sensitivity between these is quite different, i.e. hacking into the ID/loc mapping data base could result in misdirecting packets, hacking into identity store may result in loss of users' privacy.

[Uma]: Tom, you summarized well. I would note there is interconnected aspect to these 2 items w.r.t security. Identity AUTH can inherently bring security (and if needed privacy) to Identifier/Location mapping and strengthen that area tremondoesly. 
However, Identity privacy itself has  to be tackled and there are existing well defined mechanisms for that as discussed earlier in the IDEAS list (pointer from Diego, is a great example). 
When we described identity and it's uses here https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ccm-ideas-identity-use-cases-01#section-7 , we noted threat analysis aspect in Section 7 and was reflected in charter too. 

	These seem fundamentally different so security considerations should probably be considered independently of each other.

[Uma]: Different but interdependent on some aspects as mentioned above.

	Tom

	> (It doesn't have to be, for me to ballot Yes, but I did have to ask,