Re: [lisp] [Ideas] WG Review: IDentity Enabled Networks (ideas)

Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net> Wed, 11 October 2017 20:32 UTC

Return-Path: <huitema@huitema.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAED2132811 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 13:32:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
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 oIduUjRfkLTl for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 13:32:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx43-out1.antispamcloud.com (mx43-out1.antispamcloud.com [138.201.61.189]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B7EC124239 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 13:32:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from xsmtp06.mail2web.com ([168.144.250.232]) by mx18.antispamcloud.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <huitema@huitema.net>) id 1e2MmP-0005VF-5g for ietf@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 21:34:58 +0200
Received: from [10.5.2.15] (helo=xmail05.myhosting.com) by xsmtp06.mail2web.com with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from <huitema@huitema.net>) id 1e2Mls-0001zg-It for ietf@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 15:34:55 -0400
Received: (qmail 17983 invoked from network); 11 Oct 2017 19:34:22 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO [192.168.1.103]) (Authenticated-user:_huitema@huitema.net@[172.56.42.26]) (envelope-sender <huitema@huitema.net>) by xmail05.myhosting.com (qmail-ldap-1.03) with ESMTPA for <ietf@ietf.org>; 11 Oct 2017 19:34:21 -0000
To: Padma Pillay-Esnault <padma.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: "ideas@ietf.org" <ideas@ietf.org>, "lisp@ietf.org list" <lisp@ietf.org>, Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
References: <150670160872.14128.2758037992338326085.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <778d5504-ba4f-d418-7b20-356353bb0fb2@cs.tcd.ie> <CAMm+Lwg61PGrcmu=-e8ciD6Q+XmEaWWDys4g2M657VOjWmaGcg@mail.gmail.com> <CALx6S370-TuoUicWep5vV2NjLPS4d-HP1qVxW_nGrxhBLw6Eug@mail.gmail.com> <8kd5pq.oxb4pv.rtlo8t-qmf@mercury.scss.tcd.ie> <644DA50AFA8C314EA9BDDAC83BD38A2E0EAA7204@sjceml521-mbx.china.huawei.com> <dd2c3bd5-dd37-109b-2e81-0327db4daa09@cs.tcd.ie> <0BA14206-DC82-49EF-A625-B2425FA396F6@gmail.com> <1f254140-1340-6c7d-9c73-e7137562c685@gmail.com> <fa644cc2-161f-8884-3445-2b50d2c2ad23@htt-consult.com> <cf2ca920-f2d2-b65e-05eb-ebe3c30b76d1@huitema.net> <CAG-CQxrdS9L+2+bN=1NcPGuztn4U4OwSWUiNaVcS9Bsm2mtpfA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>
Message-ID: <b18459d1-7ce1-b83d-787d-9066267d584b@huitema.net>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 12:34:19 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAG-CQxrdS9L+2+bN=1NcPGuztn4U4OwSWUiNaVcS9Bsm2mtpfA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------E14CE32255CE1CCBF53D2ED8"
Content-Language: en-US
Subject: Re: [lisp] [Ideas] WG Review: IDentity Enabled Networks (ideas)
X-Originating-IP: 168.144.250.232
X-SpamExperts-Domain: xsmtpout.mail2web.com
X-SpamExperts-Username: 168.144.250.0/24
Authentication-Results: antispamcloud.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=168.144.250.0/24@xsmtpout.mail2web.com
X-SpamExperts-Outgoing-Class: ham
X-SpamExperts-Outgoing-Evidence: Combined (0.09)
X-Recommended-Action: accept
X-Filter-ID: EX5BVjFpneJeBchSMxfU5q5W2ClgRMV6odV0YRJ7ZtMXv9krsgRhBn0ayn6qsUc7A/WvCPr15FZJ Lv3b+YLl4bgNzB/4Jkrw1eDLcif59fvAIVTk7VPtA6HQN76lpw0LB98yDTitFWvbHwz9vKZpm4b3 Kv7PcFSfRyFbnU/eNYc8zYOZy1SS6ohN09nxrcu5ZsQEbaxxISMHgJxrdMdSS+C+me6dA6yBk+me OMe0W20IwpnDW1iuevuskcdSkQBqqDYcAbb25yfA/Qzc5alGOhdG5bOwa1rOgT+89+/XFrGt2tce crpXRY6fm8RXptyzavERpop5LF7RavHozgbn9XzprFRbpFQTOcEGeQOY3IcDlgJpEbxunV7tCPNi PQvHQpVRoYcix47lJTuKsG8TgnDHFRDF834rtLc6Wv9Yj+vBPX9bzGJi0ycLbiOUDEySIK/1NH5T HMtlYvyHAYGOGheVSH7cGoIH3Vd41lbD31XIx4AXarfh1O38bAuuIRigglQLLoevXSDb45gXomrF uIlRnA5tbAMbPRt1pKECoRLGvVLPSj+Hlyh2mculO/W8NktFVcl6hrIDm43UklXgo0rGkb5OztVl OoF8rUUHwR1JLObs/ksVBOHvEAgSr8kATyzYT8K6rd4RA3UMT6Em/UONoJfh+XjGSeeT90H/uIEu zJqpOtnRnb4LRDnNXrf/0Cz5xr/OfwR8iqrQHfLqcGbjO41FyBEqIaDudcVplPEfgkCmu0AbpCDt lYGBUhlW/a7J4lI9dq2HBFg+iT3zKvfFcHV2tQAVqGdj/zM7G/H0fgN5y0tqqfuQuS1mj2Wr5ft9 Iz0WDtXlRni5HCCJM9Qvlo9UV7vdWttsewtXKowaEO652uo+6xHVEn43gl09gN9PtOEBx/RKpFEr HkJ0VfjEzm1SsR8v3aJbN/NZfa/pGyl0Yc/hSh4fhbFqiL7w
X-Report-Abuse-To: spam@quarantine5.antispamcloud.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/MgWZnr7B0MVGg6MOTw0mo6zrYwk>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 20:32:18 -0000

On 10/11/2017 10:32 AM, Padma Pillay-Esnault wrote:

>     but you do not need a reference to a permanent identity for that
>     -- systems similar to CGA would work just fine.
>
>  
>
> The identity of the device is just adding a lever of identifier which
> effectively allows authentication to modify the identifiers used by
> that device but also what the users of these identifiers can look up.
> If we had used "user of identifier" it would have been misconstrued
> for humans. So damn if you do and damn if you don't ... 
>
> We are open for discussions anytime.
>

Some thing you should be hearing is that "long term identity of device"
has almost the same privacy properties as "long term identity of the
device's owner". You may think that identifying a random piece of
hardware is no big deal, but it turns out that the network activity and
network locations of that piece of hardware can be associated to those
of its human owner. So you need the same kind of protection for these
device identifiers as for human identifiers.

-- 
Christian Huitema