Re: [ietf-privacy] Privacy and Identifiers - draft-moonesamy-privacy-identifiers-01

Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> Tue, 17 September 2013 18:24 UTC

Return-Path: <avri@acm.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 023C01F0D1A for <ietf-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 11:24:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.288
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.288 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HOST_MISMATCH_COM=0.311, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yBZ+JMkuvmAn for <ietf-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 11:24:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8CB41F0C6C for <ietf-privacy@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 11:24:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] helo=[127.0.0.1]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <avri@acm.org>) id 1VLzx6-000FuL-TD for ietf-privacy@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 18:24:45 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283)
From: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>
In-Reply-To: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36EF1241331@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 14:24:44 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <247643B6-27B6-41A4-890E-35AA91EF5578@acm.org>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130914080154.0bbdf140@elandnews.com> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36EF1241331@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
To: ietf-privacy@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283)
Subject: Re: [ietf-privacy] Privacy and Identifiers - draft-moonesamy-privacy-identifiers-01
X-BeenThere: ietf-privacy@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 18:24:51 -0000

On 17 Sep 2013, at 07:56, <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> wrote:

> One comment I have when reading this reco from your draft:
> 
>      It is recommended that an identifier be used at the layer at which
>      its functionality is necessary for communication to be
>      established.
> 
> is, from a privacy perspective, there is no justification for it


I think it is an extension of the principle, that information should only used for the purpose for which it was collected, or in this case included in the packet.  In order to make privacy abuse more difficult each layer should be as privacy enhancing as possible.

While it is true that some information needs to be sent to another layer to support that layers basic functions, this should be kept to a minimum needed for functionality.  and and I can't think of a reason ever for information to be used at layer+-2 unless specifically pased by layer+-1.

avri