Re: [ietf-privacy] [Int-area] NAT Reveal / Host Identifiers
Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Wed, 11 June 2014 16:15 UTC
Return-Path: <touch@isi.edu>
X-Original-To: ietf-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1])
by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8FD51A01E7;
Wed, 11 Jun 2014 09:15:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.851
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.851 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651]
autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44])
by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id k5EqGHyQCrNU; Wed, 11 Jun 2014 09:15:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from boreas.isi.edu (boreas.isi.edu [128.9.160.161])
(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D1C81A01AB;
Wed, 11 Jun 2014 09:15:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.20.7.72] ([12.104.145.3]) (authenticated bits=0)
by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s5BGExFi015609
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT);
Wed, 11 Jun 2014 09:15:08 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <53988083.8060603@isi.edu>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 09:14:59 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64;
rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
References: <E87B771635882B4BA20096B589152EF628724B2C@eusaamb107.ericsson.se>
<539016BE.3070008@gmx.net> <53906711.5070406@cs.tcd.ie>
<5390CEC9.3000005@isi.edu> <5D2CC7D6-D9E1-49A8-818C-5FB33DC283C0@cisco.com>
<5393119F.6050805@cs.tcd.ie> <53986D94.5090801@isi.edu>
<5398711F.1020702@cs.tcd.ie>
In-Reply-To: <5398711F.1020702@cs.tcd.ie>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-privacy/6QhHipDMCqM-muUy916W9uCYEHg
Cc: "ietf-privacy@ietf.org" <ietf-privacy@ietf.org>,
Internet Area <int-area@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [ietf-privacy] [Int-area] NAT Reveal / Host Identifiers
X-BeenThere: ietf-privacy@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Internet Privacy Discussion List <ietf-privacy.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf-privacy>,
<mailto:ietf-privacy-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-privacy/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-privacy@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-privacy-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-privacy>,
<mailto:ietf-privacy-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 16:15:44 -0000
On 6/11/2014 8:09 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote: > > > On 11/06/14 15:54, Joe Touch wrote: >> >> >> On 6/7/2014 6:20 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote: >>> Yes, source addresses leak information that affects privacy. But >>> we do not have a practical way to mitigate that. So therefore >>> BCP188 does not call for doing stupid stuff, nor for new laws of >>> physics (unlike -04 of the draft we're discussing;-) >> >> Again, BCP188 does not *call* for doing anything. There are no SHOULD- >> or MUST- level requirements in that doc. Let's please not wave it in the >> air as if there are. > > I don't buy that argument at all and didn't wave anything anywhere. > > BCP188 very clearly says: > > Pervasive monitoring is a technical attack that should be mitigated > in the design of IETF protocols, where possible. > > and > > Those developing IETF specifications need to be able to describe how > they have considered PM, and, if the attack is relevant to the work > to be published, be able to justify related design decisions. This > does not mean a new "pervasive monitoring considerations" section is > needed in IETF documentation. It means that, if asked, there needs > to be a good answer to the question "Is pervasive monitoring relevant > to this work and if so, how has it been considered?" > > Reverting to RFC2119-keyword-lawyering is not IMO credible here. That's what RFC2119 is for and how we interpret BCPs. The doc goes out of its way - as you note - to include wiggle phrases like "where possible" and by not requiring a new considerations section. Yes, it's fine to discuss it here, and I've already outlined a way forward - with the caveat that my view is "do no harm", not necessarily "fix the lack of privacy already inherent in the Internet" - at least in this doc. Joe
- [ietf-privacy] NAT Reveal / Host Identifiers Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [ietf-privacy] NAT Reveal / Host Identifiers Stephen Farrell
- Re: [ietf-privacy] NAT Reveal / Host Identifiers mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [ietf-privacy] NAT Reveal / Host Identifiers Stephen Farrell
- Re: [ietf-privacy] NAT Reveal / Host Identifiers mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [ietf-privacy] NAT Reveal / Host Identifiers mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [ietf-privacy] [Int-area] WG Adoption Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [ietf-privacy] [Int-area] NAT Reveal / Host I… Ted Lemon
- Re: [ietf-privacy] [Int-area] NAT Reveal / Host I… Bernard Aboba
- Re: [ietf-privacy] [Int-area] NAT Reveal / Host I… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [ietf-privacy] [Int-area] NAT Reveal / Host I… Ted Lemon
- Re: [ietf-privacy] [Int-area] NAT Reveal / Host I… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [ietf-privacy] [Int-area] NAT Reveal / Host I… Joe Touch
- Re: [ietf-privacy] [Int-area] NAT Reveal / Host I… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [ietf-privacy] [Int-area] NAT Reveal / Host I… Joe Touch
- Re: [ietf-privacy] [Int-area] WG Adoption Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [ietf-privacy] [Int-area] NAT Reveal / Host I… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [ietf-privacy] [Int-area] NAT Reveal / Host I… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [ietf-privacy] [Int-area] NAT Reveal / Host I… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [ietf-privacy] [Int-area] NAT Reveal / Host I… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [ietf-privacy] [Int-area] NAT Reveal / Host I… Horne, Rob
- Re: [ietf-privacy] [Int-area] NAT Reveal / Host I… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [ietf-privacy] [Int-area] NAT Reveal / Host I… Eric Burger
- Re: [ietf-privacy] [Int-area] NAT Reveal / Host I… Joe Touch
- Re: [ietf-privacy] [Int-area] NAT Reveal / Host I… David Singer
- Re: [ietf-privacy] [Int-area] NAT Reveal / Host I… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [ietf-privacy] [Int-area] NAT Reveal / Host I… Dan Wing
- Re: [ietf-privacy] [Int-area] NAT Reveal / Host I… Brandon Williams
- Re: [ietf-privacy] [Int-area] NAT Reveal / Host I… Brandon Williams
- Re: [ietf-privacy] [Int-area] NAT Reveal / Host I… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [ietf-privacy] [Int-area] NAT Reveal / Host I… Joe Touch
- Re: [ietf-privacy] [Int-area] NAT Reveal / Host I… Eliot Lear
- Re: [ietf-privacy] [Int-area] NAT Reveal / Host I… Ted Lemon
- Re: [ietf-privacy] [Int-area] NAT Reveal / Host I… joel jaeggli
- Re: [ietf-privacy] [Int-area] NAT Reveal / Host I… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [ietf-privacy] [Int-area] NAT Reveal / Host I… Eliot Lear
- Re: [ietf-privacy] [Int-area] NAT Reveal / Host I… Ted Lemon
- Re: [ietf-privacy] [Int-area] NAT Reveal / Host I… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [ietf-privacy] [Int-area] NAT Reveal / Host I… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [ietf-privacy] [Int-area] NAT Reveal / Host I… Joe Touch
- Re: [ietf-privacy] [Int-area] NAT Reveal / Host I… Dirk.von-Hugo
- Re: [ietf-privacy] [Int-area] NAT Reveal / Host I… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [ietf-privacy] [Int-area] NAT Reveal / Host I… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [ietf-privacy] [Int-area] NAT Reveal / Host I… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [ietf-privacy] [Int-area] NAT Reveal / Host I… Joe Touch
- Re: [ietf-privacy] [Int-area] NAT Reveal / Host I… Brandon Williams