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

Christian Huitema <> Wed, 11 October 2017 16:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A59FB13202D for <>; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 09:16:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id esJV745_Kdrq for <>; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 09:16:06 -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 D9EB8134293 for <>; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 09:16:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <>) id 1e2Jfv-0002lc-3p for; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 18:16:04 +0200
Received: from [] ( by with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from <>) id 1e2Jfs-0004h2-M4 for; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 12:16:01 -0400
Received: (qmail 29808 invoked from network); 11 Oct 2017 16:15:59 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO []) ([]) (envelope-sender <>) by (qmail-ldap-1.03) with ESMTPA for <>; 11 Oct 2017 16:15:58 -0000
To: Robert Moskowitz <>, Brian E Carpenter <>, Dino Farinacci <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, " list" <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Christian Huitema <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 09:15:56 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------92B9B6E8D99A2797A6DF8518"
Content-Language: en-US
Authentication-Results:; auth=pass smtp.auth=
X-SpamExperts-Outgoing-Class: unsure
X-SpamExperts-Outgoing-Evidence: Combined (0.26)
X-Recommended-Action: accept
X-Filter-ID: EX5BVjFpneJeBchSMxfU5nt2WKbMNDUxhDfjWr63rHQXv9krsgRhBn0ayn6qsUc7p7He3a39gjg/ 9oOEoAajC61PdOWeIW8R8TgUu5HhPnLvU34AIGAPTAurSGpeYPBrTGulXfuaNr1V9B1E4+3dI5VM iIKmvXxtALVuD1NjPz5TPSw+CekCTYoDa8nAx3W5ZsQEbaxxISMHgJxrdMdSS4B6hVJPXxgisa+g wkHvC+OlqTWdUBHTyoJG+mqGBYi8bWhnKPmUW/oWx9V3wTBfG4Y+ZnfomCI+rgOtA8u12EwuwjY+ quNh23liqqeOwMwwqy4lE5s79uoGaeHjfOqnzPcqs5RcLqZ0NIAm9sCHr2eyNIkhDia+jiI1x+25 WhJqOf3+cMSJJ9Vk8Y6lSpImWOFtQUIkkMAnR5eEArf6zd8XhA0UizXQaOxPdjju+1r1qq9IJIue NdZ12JJe7t4cD3McN6qoXPjenLhIOF1oeRblTmB8yAD5l+TFYh5LfUT7zCwgjlYquyZL172GCMIx Azov5QJXcIJIVSSZ2lmGoFzGvVLPSj+Hlyh2mculO/W8NktFVcl6hrIDm43UklXgo0rGkb5OztVl OoF8rUUHwR1JLObs/ksVBOHvEAgSr8kAInD3q08gexeH56OZWSJPgEONoJfh+XjGSeeT90H/uIHh 9CIcA3vy4ZVtV9mI7OCgwpqCLNTK5hdImtbQi8Hm7GbjO41FyBEqIaDudcVplPEfgkCmu0AbpCDt lYGBUhlWWMqPnh3oWYEaqVdFM1yo4PfFcHV2tQAVqGdj/zM7G/GvAlpVif2edmNpSuMMbNDZ5ft9 Iz0WDtXlRni5HCCJM9Qvlo9UV7vdWttsewtXKowaEO652uo+6xHVEn43gl09gN9PtOEBx/RKpFEr HkJ0VfjEzm1SsR8v3aJbN/NZfa/pGyl0Yc/hSh4fhbFqiL7w
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: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 16:16:08 -0000

On 10/11/2017 7:56 AM, Robert Moskowitz wrote:

>> and 'identity' is a red flag.
> Whow there!  You were part of the Namespace Research Group?  I think? 
> I was and we we worked a lot on this and came to the conclusion that
> there could be no conclusion.  Not even a rough concensus, it seemed.
> I have been using 'identity' to apply to things for 20 years. Pretty
> much ever since I started working with things.  Anyone that holds the
> position that 'identity' means we are talking only about people are
> allowing their thinking to be clouded. 

I am concerned that the current proponents of the IDEAS work are mainly
resisting the feedback, treating it as some roadblock put in the path of
their work by misguided privacy purists, and attempting to remove the
roadblocks by adding some weasel words to the charter. I would feel much
more confident if these proponents acknowledged the tension between
privacy and stable identifiers of any sort, if that tension was clearly
noted in the charter, and if privacy goals were clearly stated.

Specifically, I think there is a contradiction between some of
documents. For example, draft-padma-ideas-problem-statement-01 states that:

   o  A single entity may have multiple IDs, and IDs of the same entity
      may have different life spans that are different from the lifespan
      of the entity.  Furthermore, it is understood that IDs may have
      different lifecycles, which may be permanent or ephemeral by
      choice or design.

   o  Ephemeral (temporary) IDs may be used as a short-lived pseudonym
      for a permanent ID to protect the privacy of the related entity.

But then, draft-ccm-ideas-identity-use-cases-01 states that:

   a.  Unique and Permanent Identity representing the entity enables
       authentication (AUTH) with the mapping and Identity services
       infrastructure.  While it is possible to do AUTH on Identifiers
       those are not permanently associated to the entity.  Moreover,
       AUTH operation is a relatively an expensive and inefficient
       procedure (compared to LOC resolution for example) and can cause
       excessive startup delays for lot of applications.

The tension is obvious. On one hand, the ephemeral identifiers envisaged
in the problem statement would pretty much align the privacy properties
of the ID to those of IPv6 privacy addresses, and that's good. On the
other hand, the requirement to perform authentication on identities
completely negates that property.

I would be fine if the support for "Unique and Permanent Identity" was
explicitly excluded from the charter. There is obviously a need to
support some form of access control to a mapping database, but you do
not need a reference to a permanent identity for that -- systems similar
to CGA would work just fine.

Christian Huitema