Re: [ipwave] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-49: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> Thu, 11 July 2019 13:52 UTC

Return-Path: <alissa@cooperw.in>
X-Original-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6AC71200E0; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 06:52:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=cooperw.in header.b=Z38EglQK; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=W4TnPfUz
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 QRMiahVmbhAu; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 06:52:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wout5-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout5-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.21]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7166F1200CD; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 06:52:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0951D405; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 09:52:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 11 Jul 2019 09:52:10 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h= from:message-id:content-type:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; s=fm3; bh=JnKcZ2Ic/eTRDooByClIhWi HjAHhgHZZ6+AEkJAdxbs=; b=Z38EglQK3dBCVLbvqppXmqt7GJ9+yG6UA51DHUF YGUdpoPESy0qv1ozN46Qxw5KwSCQ3Kexz3ZftQNY/2F5zUsGwxzL+c/dRJcQB/RB 4GidmxUpxrvsdkXQNBxcjiKCBLpsnLL3U1viy+XOtPSyloHFkE74OGfD/765U4IW Wb+JuT02N4EOsPodCjstsVYrEVNrUfm0tq/CL/J0uzKfUComfdbeg4rBP5n92jw9 PP7XgAUclc50GcHMHrApsfOqoHMOMDqszrGMo0u3HAIKM+EDSoSqUSa426Ga4h3y zYJSs1JPu1Fch51hmJVFhTjijrliy0O1b6W/THqkRojC2sA==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=JnKcZ2 Ic/eTRDooByClIhWiHjAHhgHZZ6+AEkJAdxbs=; b=W4TnPfUzky8pGBokrq3yK/ eLb1D9/TEVP5YUUyK4Wh5cv7QzQeH6H/PoPSwqbmM3Nl5zKwqS3hPF7eMP5SMHb6 l5GeyenXS4vXkSysfztywiuHND+ohQz7hdmOovrjsySoIpyTYFIlEqrwcGMpR+LU nWEgKEttrvijkceYNoUlAXwDD04ZCpmpqshGG3V5Xv271kamZnbcA0MgbdDXQpjx ptSNtrnJK3OdMizrKe65WZTjCXEYK8EMO3fFRi9AARJ6CN+6eZurU1CXIAxkIGlA 47CRFNqrigDcEafgjpRYEzuHPkKxPB/NBX2l1tV5EayMGUp+csw3Mnf3W3p9dtrw ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:CD8nXRf6MsjOAwQsdjge7gcRwibe4hTS-YuPkvvDUqP_KlLFenenAA>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduvddrgeekgdejudcutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefhkfgtggfuffgjvfhfofesrgdtmherhhdtjeenucfhrhhomheptehlihhsshgr ucevohhophgvrhcuoegrlhhishhsrgestghoohhpvghrfidrihhnqeenucffohhmrghinh epihgvthhfrdhorhhgnecukfhppedujeefrdefkedruddujedrledunecurfgrrhgrmhep mhgrihhlfhhrohhmpegrlhhishhsrgestghoohhpvghrfidrihhnnecuvehluhhsthgvrh fuihiivgeptd
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:CD8nXUa017EIYj-uW0I5ySj5w-jQ3fkGZV7TL0FumWMkWHLnaJYDXg> <xmx:CD8nXbajDkqQQ9FhbxVhBnb1Iw5gkao1xcBYOAipbBOEL6QRLsGa9w> <xmx:CD8nXRKJ3PHR52sej8Vd-jKLPISn6tFkCR0Obv0NEu5ADfAEkzmpMA> <xmx:CT8nXd9F2B3X9dQaiKJTnAnUfFUBTs--D1salzM6MrQOhOMbRyoHDw>
Received: from rtp-alcoop-nitro2.cisco.com (unknown [173.38.117.91]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 5900E380083; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 09:52:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
Message-Id: <2CFE579C-7625-4875-AD4A-D5C26814287D@cooperw.in>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B18C9D3C-323A-4AC6-95A7-CA2951816F70"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 09:52:08 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CAD8vqFf5nQk+BWfoOnR9p5JHMfWf1fj1FCtAkJzgiDnFrz+Mqg@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb@ietf.org, Carlos Bernardos <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>, ipwave-chairs@ietf.org, its@ietf.org
To: Nabil Benamar <n.benamar@est.umi.ac.ma>
References: <156278324219.15531.9469512400534766331.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAD8vqFf5nQk+BWfoOnR9p5JHMfWf1fj1FCtAkJzgiDnFrz+Mqg@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/its/7se2xpBycu4NPuTP05aY4TgDng4>
Subject: Re: [ipwave] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-49: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: its@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IPWAVE - IP Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments WG at IETF <its.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/its>, <mailto:its-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/its/>
List-Post: <mailto:its@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:its-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its>, <mailto:its-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 13:52:15 -0000

Hi Nabil,

> On Jul 10, 2019, at 4:57 PM, Nabil Benamar <n.benamar@est.umi.ac.ma> wrote:
> 
> Hi Alissa,
> 
> Thanks again for your review. Please see my answers below
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 7:27 PM Alissa Cooper via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org <mailto:noreply@ietf.org>> wrote:
> Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-49: Discuss
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html <https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html>
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb/>
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I support Roman's DISCUSS.
> 
> Overall I am unclear on the privacy properties of what this document specifies.
> I think it would help to have a clear statement about the circumstances under
> which each kind of address generation scheme is recommended. Were RFC 4941
> addresses not considered because addresses generated according to RFC 8064 have
> functionally equivalent properties given how often moving vehicle change
> subnets? For link-local addresses, is it possible to give recommendations for
> when IIDs should be re-generated?
> 
> Here is the new text in -49
> 
> An example of change policy is to change the MAC
>    address of the OCB interface each time the system boots up.  This may
>    help mitigate privacy risks to a certain level.  Futhermore, for
>    pricavy concerns ([RFC8065 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8065>]) recommends using an address generation
>    scheme rather than addresses generated from a fixed link-layer 
>    address.
> 

I saw this when I read the document but it doesn’t address my questions above. Also in your email to Roni you mentioned other environmental factors that might trigger a change in link-local address, so I was hoping to see that in the document text.

Thanks,
Alissa

>  
> = Section 5.2 =
> 
> "An Interface ID SHOULD be of length specified in other documents."
> 
> Isn't the length specified for each of the two IID generation mechanisms
> discussed in Section 4.3 and 4.4?
> 
> We decided to remove this sentence from the text since ther is no other document.
> 
> = Section 5.3 =
> 
> "The demand for privacy protection of vehicles' and drivers'
>    identities, which could be granted by using a pseudonym or alias
>    identity at the same time, may hamper the required confidentiality of
>    messages and trust between participants"
> 
> Pseudonymity and confidentiality are not mutually exclusive, so I think this is
> incorrect.
> 
> I agree.
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Please expand OCB and STA on first use.
> 
> = Section 2 =
> 
> "Note: compliance with
>    standards and regulations set in different countries when using the
>    5.9GHz frequency band is required."
> 
> I'm not familiar with the standards and regulations being referenced here, but
> is there any specific reason why this needs to be said here? Presumably users
> of regulated spectrum bands the world over must comply with associated
> regulations governing their use. It's not clear to me that it makes sense to
> note this here.
> 
> = Section 5.1.1 =
> 
> "Further
>    correlation of this information with other data captured by other
>    means, or other visual information (car color, others) MAY constitute
>    privacy risks."
> 
> The normative MAY is not appropriate here.
> 
> = Section 5.2 =
> 
> "In 802.11-OCB networks, the MAC addresses MAY change during well
>    defined renumbering events."
> 
> The normative MAY is not appropriate here (since this is not the 802.11-OCB
> spec).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Best Regards
> 
> Nabil Benamar
> Associate Professor
> Department of Computer Sciences
> School of Technology
> Moulay Ismail University 
> Meknes. Morocco