[ietf-privacy] Fwd: [irsg] IRSG review request draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g-07

Mallory Knodel <mknodel@cdt.org> Wed, 01 July 2020 16:00 UTC

Return-Path: <mknodel@cdt.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1AB33A11A7 for <ietf-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 09:00:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cdt.org
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kh4TgKkjMNLQ for <ietf-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 09:00:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt1-x82d.google.com (mail-qt1-x82d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::82d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 731FC3A114B for <ietf-privacy@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 09:00:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt1-x82d.google.com with SMTP id u12so18789627qth.12 for <ietf-privacy@ietf.org>; Wed, 01 Jul 2020 09:00:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cdt.org; s=google; h=subject:references:to:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language; bh=K8x5DhhImtlW6/UWBA65uq/8tLUftqGz6XAZJ1c/USI=; b=VfUvlE8GXBx4SwINMre9uDJAcFaLBvvVyWmB0IFinWKtvggl1DOqhxLFagXCZerIFn awQle3J04kVuFeWpw7+CJ4kdeAHLNnKt9XMUHG4P25mPINNSXXoLD40XbUpNSHz8jY8T tDi6wTy4RXRLp1hlLSF1hM5JnLdWKHBK4IuCQ=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:references:to:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language; bh=K8x5DhhImtlW6/UWBA65uq/8tLUftqGz6XAZJ1c/USI=; b=TgpbBN8QccvkQ4dI2txdpVM9IWaAg6tINEQSXeShtAFIRaQy2aN+QGfEvQ60I5+lF6 pBp7p4p4uzFqwX6rOId68apDNFfvGlkePZ3ybGgIJBe7YyaflzbZ50qSNYgy/S6bNEpm lnp/F2OsX11RoybIiARzfEtdI5ev+JbjfOcncjE4kMXz7o/HuUIWbOop829KSsDHFar6 tZSvu9nppOh0qMOcqf0iBN8mJkynrLqy0AaZvC3b1YOKUYCwYbDYB75ZXdL25btL4SRj GlVcpIjTXEsqiwYreV8iFGn2X7491HfARD9WIb8iLk6FpNaVEQqnE1dzD2h9Rl07KAdG 3gcw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532pAS9oEju4MRG2EjY2jNcoLEZT63tCgEp3dpY2sVPJj/4ZBwb1 5f+S5y+kTY0A6iRo2I62E8Ms4KoI+C8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzFvgdrydAn/RoEKgwgkMNOAlKSwdEwXFiVv6IEtaIyYI2xU5QceqwcX50nvgzkBt8Z4CWMPg==
X-Received: by 2002:aed:27c7:: with SMTP id m7mr27704572qtg.13.1593619216197; Wed, 01 Jul 2020 09:00:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Mallorys-MacBook-Air.local (c-73-163-188-207.hsd1.dc.comcast.net. []) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n2sm5969025qtp.45.2020. for <ietf-privacy@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 01 Jul 2020 09:00:15 -0700 (PDT)
References: <5938b1b2-84e0-0b98-d2a3-d632a1c23f2f@cdt.org>
To: ietf-privacy@ietf.org
From: Mallory Knodel <mknodel@cdt.org>
X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <5938b1b2-84e0-0b98-d2a3-d632a1c23f2f@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <b01139ab-1133-7dae-d19b-7dd101cf463e@cdt.org>
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2020 12:00:14 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5938b1b2-84e0-0b98-d2a3-d632a1c23f2f@cdt.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------FEA27190D2CF83F32CA5BFF9"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-privacy/PgRdLSSV2rzl9n4XhBdgAcn1BKo>
Subject: [ietf-privacy] Fwd: [irsg] IRSG review request draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g-07
X-BeenThere: ietf-privacy@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 01 Jul 2020 16:00:20 -0000

Hi all,

Just sending this here since I suggested they include a privacy 
considerations section and appear to have accepted that.

In general ICN has a privacy issue, so interested if anyone has a 
general take or links to that effect. Even a joint draft between ICNRG 
and PEARG might be a very useful contribution as caching becomes ubiquitous,


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	Re: [irsg] IRSG review request draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g-07
Date: 	Fri, 26 Jun 2020 11:20:23 -0400
From: 	Mallory Knodel <mknodel@cdt.org>
To: 	Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>
CC: 	draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g.authors@ietf.org, icnrg-chairs@ietf.org

Hi everyone,

On behalf of the IRSG I reviewed this draft. I have two main points and 
a general observation that some sections will require extensive copy 
editing by the RFC Editor, which would be nice to avoid by the authors 
providing that if another version is imminent anyway. My two main points 
relate to privacy and references.

Generally it seems that privacy trade offs from IP to ICN, even in 
IPoICN, aren't made explicit and I wonder as well if the mere existence 
of the transport convergence layer, even when useless for IP to IP, 
isn't of concern. As noted in RFC 7945, ICN as an architecture trades 
privacy for efficiency, where "The activity of users is significantly 
more exposed to the scrutiny of cache owners..." In the conclusion 
lawful intercept is mentioned, which I imagine would be expedited by the 
TCL even for IP to IP. Wondering if I could convince you to introduce a 
privacy considerations section that states plainly the trade off and the 
risks of this architecture, even for native IP.

On references, there are a few points:

  * point-h2020.eu appears to no longer be a functional domain.

  * I'm unable to dig into IPoICN because the IEEE paper referenced is 
inaccessible without a subscription-- I couldn't even buy it, though I 
tried. It's possible another link, or another publication, even if 
paywalled might be better.

  * HICN reference, the draft is now in version -04 

  * Similarly ICN5G is now in -04 

  * And ICNLOWPAN is now -08 

  * The NGMN citation link is incorrect or broken, but it appears there 
is a PDF of this publication online, the integrity of which I can't verify.


On 6/23/20 11:11 AM, Colin Perkins wrote:
> IRSG members,
> The ICNRG Research Group has requested that 
> draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g-07 
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g/> be 
> considered for publication as an IRTF RFC. To progress this draft, we 
> now need *at least one* IRSG member to volunteer to provide a detailed 
> review of the draft, as follows:
>> The purpose of the IRSG review is to ensure consistent editorial and 
>> technical quality for IRTF publications. IRSG review is not a deep 
>> technical review. (This should take place within the RG.) At least 
>> one IRSG member other than the chair of the RG bringing the work 
>> forth must review the document and the RG’s editorial process.
>> IRSG reviewers should look for clear, cogent, and consistent writing. 
>> An important aspect of the review is to gain a critical reading from 
>> reviewers who are not subject matter experts and, in the process, 
>> assure the document will be accessible to those beyond the authoring 
>> research group. Also, reviewers should assess whether sufficient 
>> editorial and technical review has been conducted and the 
>> requirements for publication described in RFC 5743  have been 
>> met. Finally, reviewers should check that appropriate citations to 
>> related research literature have been made.
>> Reviews should be written to be public. Review comments should be 
>> sent to the IRSG and RG mailing lists and entered into the tracker. 
>> All IRSG review comments must be addressed. However, the RG need not 
>> accept every comment. It is the responsibility of the shepherd to 
>> understand the comments and ensure that the RG considers them 
>> including adequate dialog between the reviewer and the author and/or 
>> RG. Reviews and their resolution should be entered into the tracker 
>> by the document shepherd.
>> The IRSG review often results in the document being revised. Once the 
>> reviewer(s), authors, and shepherd have converged on review comments, 
>> the shepherd starts the IRSG Poll on whether the document should be 
>> published.
> Please respond to this message if you’re able to perform such a 
> review, and indicate the approximate time-frame by which you’ll be 
> able to complete it. The document shepherd write-up is available at 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g/shepherdwriteup/ 
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g/shepherdwriteup/> 
> Thanks!
> Colin

Mallory Knodel
CTO, Center for Democracy and Technology
gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780