Re: [ipwave] MAC Address minor textual issue

Hello All:

I do not agree with the statement that "there are strong privacy concerns".
I suggest changing "concerns" to "requirements".

I think stating that there are strong concerns conveys a sense of this
being a big unsolved problem. For the DSRC/ITS-G5 community this is not the
case. Privacy protection, including careful avoidance of PII in messages,
pseudonymous certificates, and frequent identifier randomization, has been
designed into DSRC/ITS-G5 from day 1.

The requirements are cross-layer and systemic, but also not universal for
OCB (e.g. RSUs are licensed for a site and do not need privacy protection),
so 802.11 would not have been the best place to address them. Stating that
they are not addressed in 802.11 sounds to me like it was an oversight or
omission. It was not.

I agree with noting that some standards already address privacy protection,
but I don't think it helps to list standards (like 802.11) that do not.

I hope these comments are helpful.

Best Regards,
John

On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 6:57 AM, Jérôme Härri <jerome.haerri@eurecom.fr>
wrote:

> Dear Russ, Dear Alex,
>
>
>
> Indeed, and so does ETSI ITS. So, we can keep what is there, and maybe add
> something like:
>
>
>
> (…)While the 802.11-OCB standard does not specify anything particular
> with respect to MAC addresses, higher layer stack architecture, such as
> IEEE 1609 and ETSI ITS does impose MAC requirements. Accordingly, similar
> requirements might be expected or required when operating IPv6 over
> 802.11-OCB without these architectures (…)
>
>
>
> Do we need to  define what we mean by ‘MAC requirements’?
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
>
>
> Jérôme
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* its [mailto:its-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Russ Housley
> *Sent:* Thursday 18 May 2017 15:44
> *To:* Alexandre Petrescu
> *Cc:* its@ietf.org
> *Subject:* [ipwave] MAC Address minor textual issue
>
>
>
>
>
> On May 18, 2017, at 5:39 AM, Alexandre Petrescu <
> alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> 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
>
>
> 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.
>
> 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?
>
>
>
> Russ
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> its mailing list
> its@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
>
>

-- 
John Kenney
Director and Principal Researcher
Toyota InfoTechnology Center, USA
465 Bernardo Avenue
Mountain View, CA 94043
Tel: 650-694-4160. Mobile: 650-224-6644