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

[Uma Chunduri <[e-mail]>]

Some comments in-line [Uma]:

BR,

--
Uma C.

From: Ideas [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Padma Pillay-Esnault
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2017 9:36 PM
To: Padmadevi Pillay Esnault <[e-mail]>
Cc: Tom Herbert <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Alexander Clemm <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Ideas] Your Input requested: Charter Proposal New Version

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
[Uma]: Looks fine and the term” control plane”   can be dropped from the above sentence.  #1

- 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.
[Uma]: This list doesn’t capture #1 in the earlier description and IMO that should be listed too


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
[Uma]: Are you saying an Architecture document (framework as listed in the Milestones below??) else I see “Applications of the architecture for use cases” is bit confusing.


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