Re: [ipwave] MAC Address minor textual issue

[François Simon <[e-mail]>]

Mr. Housley;

 

See comments in the text.

 

Fygs

 

From: its [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Russ Housley
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 9:44 AM
To: Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: [ipwave] MAC Address minor textual issue

 

 

On May 18, 2017, at 5:39 AM, Alexandre Petrescu
<[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> > wrote:

 

OLD:



In vehicular communications using 802.11-OCB links, there are strong
privacy concerns with respect to addressing. While the 802.11-OCB
standard does not specify anything in particular with respect to MAC
addresses 

[Fygs: if we are talking about privacy, I believed the statement is correct.
Other methods are used in IEEE 802.11 Security to support privacy.  This
function would not be expected to be in the MAC sub-layer]. 


It has been suggested that there is something to think about here, which
may affect the above statement: there is at least one country where the
vehicle|driver information, be it physical or electronic, must be
allowed access by law enforcement if so required.

[Fygs: This is correct.  IEEE 1609 recognize this fact and such does not
mandate the implementations to secure privacy – “whatever privacy services
are provided, there may be a legal right for appropriately authorized
parties to reverse that privacy for law enforcement or to ensure the correct
operation of the system. ‘].



This is noted.  I suggest we discuss this separately.

At this time I do not modify this text.

End issue.

 

IEEE 1609 does impose MAC address requirements.  Is this the right place to
call that out? 

[Fygs: I do not think there is an “imposition” implied here.  IEEE 1609.0:
IEEE 1609 standards provide primitives to change local WAVE MAC addresses to
protect the privacy of  the device operator. The process by which a decision
is made to change the WAVE MAC address is not addressed in the IEEE 1609
standards. See 5.13.10 for further discussion.”]