Re: [ietf-privacy] [Int-area] NAT Reveal / Host Identifiers

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Stephen,

On 06/06/2014 00:48, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> 
> Hiya,
> 
> On 05/06/14 08:05, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
>> If you want to review a document with privacy implications then 
>> have a look at the NAT reveal / host identifier work (with 
>> draft-boucadair-intarea-host-identifier-scenarios-04 currently in
>> a call for adoption).
>>
>> I had raised my concerns several times now on the mailing list and 
>> during the meetings.
> 
> I share those concerns. And adopting this without any consideration
> of BCP188 would fly in the face of a very recent, very thoroughly
> discussed, IETF consensus. 

I have to call you on that. WG adoption is not approval. It's agreement
to work on a topic. It is not OK to attempt a pocket veto on adoption
because you don't like the existing content.

> For something like this, the onus ought
> IMO be on the proposers to have done that work before asking for
> adoption. 

Why? Where do the rules say that?

As a matter of fact I tend to agree with many of your criticisms
of the draft, and I like the idea (below) of adding what we might
call the misuse cases. That's a discussion the intarea WG could have.

    Brian

> Based on the draft, they clearly have not done that.
> 
> We could also ask to add more use-cases:
> 
> use-case#12: spy on everyone more easily, TEMPORA++
> use-case#13: sell data that's even more fine-grained than clickstreams
> use-case#14: expose your n/w internals to help on path attackers
> use-case#15: track hosts from which people emit "dangerous" utterances
> use-case#16: block hosts from which people emit "dangerous" utterances
> use-case#17: charge me more for using two of my computers in my house
> 
> The set of use-cases presented very much contradicts the explicit
> claim in the draft that no position is being taken as to the merits
> of this. IMO that argues strongly to not adopt this.
> 
> One could also comment on the requirements that seem to
> require new laws of physics or are otherwise pretty odd:
> 
> REQ#1: seems to require knowing from packets passing by that
> a device is a "trusted device" (and REQ#15 says that can be
> done with 16 bits;-) Hmm... are those qubits maybe?
> 
> REQ#5: *all* IP packets MUST have a HOST_ID... but presumably
> without a flag day. Hmm...
> 
> REQ#6: says this is a transport thing. Eh, why ask INT-AREA?
> 
> REQ#10+REQ#11: MUST be intradomain only but MUST also be inter
> domain. Hmm...
> 
> REQ#18: receiver MUST "enforce policies like QoS." Huh?
> 
> Such a frankly bogus list of "requirements" also means that
> this is not something that ought be adopted in the IETF.
> 
> I also think that this proposal has previously been proposed
> in other ways and not adopted. Such forum-shopping is yet
> another reason to not adopt it, and certainly not as an
> area wg thing without any broader IETF-wide consideration.
> (As an aside: having to play whack-a-mole with such repeat
> proposals is one of the downsides of area wgs. Not sure
> if anything can be done about that though.)
> 
> In summary: ignoring BCP188, the selection-bias in use
> cases, the badly thought out "requirements" and forum
> shopping are all independently sufficient reasons to
> not adopt this. And of course that doesn't include all
> the other issues with potential solutions listed in
> RFC6967 (the reference to which is oddly to the I-D and
> not the RFC).
> 
> My conclusion: this one ought go to /dev/null same as the
> previous attempts to shop the same thing into other parts
> of the IETF.
> 
> S
> 
> 
>> Ciao Hannes
>>
>>
>> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: 	[Int-area] Call for 
>> adoption of draft-boucadair-intarea-host-identifier-scenarios-04 
>> Date: 	Thu, 5 Jun 2014 04:20:56 +0000 From: 	Suresh Krishnan 
>> <[e-mail]> To: 	Internet Area 
>> <[e-mail]>
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> This draft was originally intended to be published as an AD 
>> sponsored submission from the OPS area, but the authors have 
>> expressed their interest to continue this work in the intarea wg 
>> given that RFC6269 and RFC6967 originated here. The draft has been 
>> updated to address the issues brought up during earlier
>> discussions on the wg mailing list and the latest version of the
>> draft is available at
>>
>>
>>
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boucadair-intarea-host-identifier-scenarios-04
>>
>>
>>
> This call is being initiated to determine whether there is WG
>> consensus towards adoption of 
>> draft-boucadair-intarea-host-identifier-scenarios-04 as an intarea 
>> WG draft. Please state whether or not you're in favor of the 
>> adoption by replying to this email. If you are not in favor, please
>> also state your objections in your response. This adoption call
>> will complete on 2014-06-19.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Suresh & Juan Carlos
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________ ietf-privacy 
>> mailing list [e-mail] 
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-privacy
>>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1
> 
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTkGcRAAoJEC88hzaAX42iFYYIAIlJHJE1BNetIdjhDTqlTfsX
> w+fFwSpCfi1LzZzxYR+ZgnL96ed8QPJ/YJEb4S1jZ0u2g1+DqMbSMsuQ6aW78+WM
> iHfyIqO8m7Ahkk1J++/5bK3N0fbqhMjWmqs1cCa7Gg/o9RScZQiMJQef8Iju5gVN
> 3dnd/7riV9THntV7DQdwGC0SXp9Wfwn2i3oAqxYVpEixCxxGbQBRPIiXBcaLBP4s
> lr86tLPCPdXB2K4uPsuofVxL/uGBkahF6DAGjq3URcUEVi/J82XL+eB/3bLQU5XG
> 2Mr0LMu7v4XQ+92zCjm7UmWmiL1fcQ+M0g+5nESSP8bO3sNlFlN33+jzsEGTBRM=
> =TF0g
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Int-area mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
> .
>