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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Mon, 09 June 2014 20:11 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
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 88B5C1A02F4; Mon, 9 Jun 2014 13:11:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 oC9O0SYLaWUw; Mon, 9 Jun 2014 13:10:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pd0-x22c.google.com (mail-pd0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::22c]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 16BD21A02EE; Mon, 9 Jun 2014 13:10:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pd0-f172.google.com with SMTP id fp1so5247781pdb.17 for <multiple recipients>; Mon, 09 Jun 2014 13:10:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=vVi6PbL5lP2amKnWh2I+Q8GWFQcUKJVxk3HtcoNeTRU=; b=KBUaw7xXLQXEuUcu2sOlsdZiM8VZJe64B0Tmo2SkPlphZeNSO+Xgu/RreaZb2bD//M CQxwGgB2TamByTPG4JYoeLfSBiOfFANHPlYhuvlTx6+JnTY75kwH1FaidxHM2s3Sa90v dBaL3vy+vITbaDGuv0CAjWISvYMqIEIAQRE5ZSYae+kjTIYBHlLGBBQzBSds+na9vcEl B7iytP4uoUHm4eFlAsjYin3WmhPMLvJ53rw8NIMBXANmYzvJp2lQWfmfDJFcOoFHjxr+ ZP5AWT7kxbUicDJ3BZ3F/IVmjPHCl+4gJVo91q61D3tOaZ+ewVPi0NxvinM9euu7KIcx 1blA==
X-Received: by 10.69.19.140 with SMTP id gu12mr6808736pbd.111.1402344657774; Mon, 09 Jun 2014 13:10:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.23] (98.197.69.111.dynamic.snap.net.nz. [111.69.197.98]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id it4sm65506379pbc.39.2014.06.09.13.10.55 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 09 Jun 2014 13:10:57 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <539614C9.9050308@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 08:10:49 +1200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.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> <5395E195.4080007@cisco.com> <C920E9AB-A1F5-4BEB-9573-299D43596367@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <C920E9AB-A1F5-4BEB-9573-299D43596367@nominum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-privacy/BbEGsSlDVyM20B3uJyXKGGvijVY
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: Mon, 09 Jun 2014 20:11:06 -0000

On 10/06/2014 04:43, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Jun 9, 2014, at 12:32 PM, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> wrote:
>> But does adding a header solve the problem?  Not unless it is signed AND I believe the signature.  And then I had better be willing to spend the processing time to sort out your good customers from your bad customers.  I might do that if you're at a very big mail service provider, in which case I probably get very little spam, anyway.  I probably won't do that if you're Joe's small time ISP, unless there is some scaling feature not yet deployed today.
> 
> Bingo.

So, there are some more components of the threat analysis and the solution
requirements. That's good, but I thought we were discussing whether
to document the use cases.

   Brian