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

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Wed, 11 June 2014 14:31 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.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 8ECD21A010D; Wed, 11 Jun 2014 07:31:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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 MvzB3F8LtAR2; Wed, 11 Jun 2014 07:31:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias245.francetelecom.com [80.12.204.245]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 611371A063B; Wed, 11 Jun 2014 07:31:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omfeda06.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.199]) by omfeda11.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 6D0A71B827D; Wed, 11 Jun 2014 16:31:39 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [10.114.31.56]) by omfeda06.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 26651C804B; Wed, 11 Jun 2014 16:31:39 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([169.254.2.12]) by OPEXCLILH04.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([10.114.31.56]) with mapi id 14.03.0181.006; Wed, 11 Jun 2014 16:31:39 +0200
From: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
Thread-Topic: [Int-area] [ietf-privacy] NAT Reveal / Host Identifiers
Thread-Index: AQHPgaBKDm6yLULEn0WY6FQhphp6qZtr/mVw
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 14:31:38 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933001605D@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <E87B771635882B4BA20096B589152EF628724B2C@eusaamb107.ericsson.se> <539016BE.3070008@gmx.net> <53906711.5070406@cs.tcd.ie> <5390D2F8.6000801@gmail.com> <1B87ABE4-1CA1-450D-BA96-3018DF39F08D@nominum.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93300141B4@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <8A4C0802-DE9A-4ADF-AEA5-61DEC2AFB25B@nominum.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933001433C@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <5391E55E.9000105@cs.tcd.ie>
In-Reply-To: <5391E55E.9000105@cs.tcd.ie>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.168.234.1]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-PMX-Version: 6.0.3.2322014, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2014.6.10.215118
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-privacy/PJzGm0s0NkBHETfIWvVYe4UrIvI
Cc: "ietf-privacy@ietf.org" <ietf-privacy@ietf.org>, "int-area@ietf.org" <int-area@ietf.org>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
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 14:31:47 -0000

Hi Stephen,

Please see inline.

Cheers,
Med

>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : Stephen Farrell [mailto:stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie]
>Envoyé : vendredi 6 juin 2014 17:59
>À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN; Ted Lemon
>Cc : Brian E Carpenter; ietf-privacy@ietf.org; int-area@ietf.org
>Objet : Re: [Int-area] [ietf-privacy] NAT Reveal / Host Identifiers
>
>
>Hi Med,
>
>On 06/06/14 12:41, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com wrote:
>> [Med] I'm not sure about this Ted. There are other initiatives that
>> try to solve the issue for particular use cases, see for instance
>> this effort for HTTP:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-http-forwarded-10. The
>> rationale of the "host identifier scenarios" document is to group all
>> use cases suffering from the same problem instead of focusing on one
>> single case. This allows having a big picture view of the problem
>> space.
>
>I think XFF is actually a good example of why we ought not adopt
>this work.

[Med] I provided "Forward" as an example to illustrate there is a need to have a big picture view rather than focusing on specific use case. This draft does not suggest to adopt XFF or Forward at all. There is a need to understand the problem space and identify deployment scenarios where encountering complications.

>
>XFF is widely deployed already but somewhat flakey in terms of
>interop so the authors of the above draft aimed to produce a spec
>that just addressed interop. (*) That was adopted by an area WG
>without (IMO) ever really considering the privacy implications,
>and definitely without any effort having been made to develop a
>more privacy-friendly mechanism (which could have been done, again
>IMO) to solve what were the claimed use-cases.

[Med] Wouldn't be this effort an opportunity to promote those solutions you are advocating for? The proxy use case (not limited to HTTP) is listed as a typical scenario. If there are other better solutions that solves your privacy concerns, why not documenting them? 

 By the time it
>got to the IESG that was in practice unfixable and after some
>fairly painful discussions it ended up with 4 abstain ballots,
>including mine. [1] (For those who quite reasonably don't need
>to care about IESG balloting, an abstain means approximately
>"yuk.":-)
>
>Of course that all also pre-dated BCP188 and the last year's
>shenanigans so I'd hope we have learned to not keep doing that.
>
>I'd be delighted if those who could get a better solution
>implemented/deployed were to attempt to try to address the
>privacy issues with XFF but it seems that at least in that
>case relevant folks don't care (sufficiently;-) deeply about
>our privacy to go do that.
>
>S.
>
>[1]
>https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-appsawg-http-forwarded/ballot/
>
>(*) To be clear: I think the authors were genuinely just
>trying to fix what they saw as an interop problem.