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

Stephen Farrell <> Thu, 05 June 2014 12:48 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C1681A008D; Thu, 5 Jun 2014 05:48:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.551
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HEoc_are9Xjj; Thu, 5 Jun 2014 05:48:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B89141A008C; Thu, 5 Jun 2014 05:48:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B75BABF88; Thu, 5 Jun 2014 13:48:19 +0100 (IST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7N3dGWLEVEWH; Thu, 5 Jun 2014 13:48:18 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [] (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CA24FBF38; Thu, 5 Jun 2014 13:48:17 +0100 (IST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2014 13:48:17 +0100
From: Stephen Farrell <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Hannes Tschofenig <>,
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "" <>, "Zuniga, Juan Carlos" <>
Subject: Re: [ietf-privacy] NAT Reveal / Host Identifiers
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Internet Privacy Discussion List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2014 12:48:30 -0000

Hash: SHA1


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


> 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 
> <> To: 	Internet Area 
> <>
> 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
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 
Version: GnuPG v1