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

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Mon, 22 July 2019 08:31 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
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 C41C4120191 for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 01:31:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.632
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.632 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=ham 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 ItSnAliENLCN for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 01:31:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cirse-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (cirse-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.148]) (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 A5A021201A0 for <its@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 01:31:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by cirse-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id x6M8V9eG040025 for <its@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 10:31:09 +0200
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id B413C2016A1 for <its@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 10:31:09 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from muguet1-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr (muguet1-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.12]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA3B8201372 for <its@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 10:31:09 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.8.35.150] (is154594.intra.cea.fr [10.8.35.150]) by muguet1-sys.intra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id x6M8V93U022611 for <its@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 10:31:09 +0200
To: its@ietf.org
References: <156270262382.15819.8454309099280995022.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAD8vqFdf7yTAVFeiz7t4qazhcrYjDcMOPPbvfwQy2xcA9GjQ2A@mail.gmail.com> <359EC4B99E040048A7131E0F4E113AFC01B33CE293@marchand> <CAD8vqFexwdsqFQ4tUGdQpxvV=wWb1Y4GpZZtjCuyHZbH=vOqwA@mail.gmail.com> <359EC4B99E040048A7131E0F4E113AFC01B33DE6E3@marchand>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5270f491-06bd-e305-3d83-cc9e70f2b38b@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 10:31:09 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <359EC4B99E040048A7131E0F4E113AFC01B33DE6E3@marchand>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/its/9KY_F-G7Ws141zIzGQqBJ8w5jvc>
Subject: Re: [ipwave] Roman Danyliw'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: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 08:31:14 -0000


Le 21/07/2019 à 22:34, Roman Danyliw a écrit :
> Hi Nabil!
> 
> Thanks for the -50 update.  See below for the details.  The quick 
> summary is that discuss items #1-3 are addressed in -50.  I haven’t seen 
> an response on discuss #4.


Roman Danyliw wrote recently:
 > ** What specific ETSI protocols are being recommended from
 > [ETSI-sec-archi]?

I do not know for sure myself.  One would ask Jérôme Härri.

I looked myself at the public document referred (ETSI TS 102 940 V1.2.1
(2016-11)).  I could find a recommendation to generate MAC address:
"shall be derived from the identifier provided by the Security Entity in
the ID change notification".  (the "ID Change Notification" seems to be
an application layer message).

 From my side, I do not agree with this method to generate more
obfuscated MAC addresses.

I have some ideas how to generate more obfuscated MAC addresses, but
certainly not in the ETSI way.

 > ** What is meant by the drivers’ identity in this case?

There is activity at Gemalto now Thales about e-Driver's License.
Supposedly that is an electronic format of a driver's license that is
more accessible.  I think that driver's license in some countries have
no electronic equivalent at this time.

The trials of electronic Driver's License happened mostly in America,
and were probably totally absent in Europe.

That is all I know.

 > What is the pseudonym scheme is being used to protect it or what
 > requirements are being set for it?

I do not know myself.

 > ** What are the specific challenges of concern around
 > pseudo-anonymization approaches to which an allusion is made?
 >
 > ** Who is the trusted third parted needed?

There is no trusted third party in the automotive networks.  There are a
few efforts to build national Certificate Authorities, European
automotive PKIs, and similar.  Most are backed by trials.  But there is
no universally agreed CA (like is e.g. Verisign in the Internet world).
  They are all expensive to access, and some times even impossible.

What is needed is that the automotive networks use the CAs from Internet.

What is needed is that the automotive networks use the CAs from Internet.

Alex