Re: [ipwave] MAC Address minor textual issue

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Mon, 29 May 2017 15:57 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 207B2129ADA for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 May 2017 08:57:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.667
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.667 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no 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 zvvoWPnkwb2L for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 May 2017 08:57:43 -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 3DEF5129AD0 for <its@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 May 2017 08:57:43 -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 v4TFveQh042381; Mon, 29 May 2017 17:57:40 +0200
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 99110205834; Mon, 29 May 2017 17:57:40 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from muguet2.intra.cea.fr (muguet2.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.7]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8669320581D; Mon, 29 May 2017 17:57:40 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [132.166.84.45] ([132.166.84.45]) by muguet2.intra.cea.fr (8.15.2/8.15.2/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.4) with ESMTP id v4TFvb8Z013073; Mon, 29 May 2017 17:57:38 +0200
To: John Kenney <jkenney@us.toyota-itc.com>, Jérôme Härri <jerome.haerri@eurecom.fr>
References: <b7d0f246-da90-ac56-db69-40e9e929900d@gmail.com> <13CE99A5-4B32-472A-B793-3ADC2E530409@vigilsec.com> <009601d2cfde$ad5abce0$081036a0$@eurecom.fr> <CAP6QOWQkSod0JxSdN9U+ztPwhLu0z35w-=O=WMQL1EOi_UzwpQ@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>, "its@ietf.org" <its@ietf.org>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4484e874-d41d-50c6-b2f2-6bb4e1d182ef@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 18:57:37 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAP6QOWQkSod0JxSdN9U+ztPwhLu0z35w-=O=WMQL1EOi_UzwpQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/its/bxw5VPsuf-X41b1ilhtalhKnNjw>
Subject: Re: [ipwave] MAC Address minor textual issue
X-BeenThere: its@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 29 May 2017 15:57:45 -0000

Le 18/05/2017 à 16:50, John Kenney a écrit :
> Hello All:
>
> I do not agree with the statement that "there are strong privacy
> concerns". I suggest changing "concerns" to "requirements".

Ok, changed to "requirements".

Alex

>
> 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
> <mailto: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
>     <mailto:its-bounces@ietf.org>] *On Behalf Of *Russ Housley
>     *Sent:* Thursday 18 May 2017 15:44
>     *To:* Alexandre Petrescu
>     *Cc:* its@ietf.org <mailto:its@ietf.org>
>     *Subject:* [ipwave] MAC Address minor textual issue____
>
>     __ __
>
>     __ __
>
>         On May 18, 2017, at 5:39 AM, Alexandre Petrescu
>         <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com
>         <mailto: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 <mailto:its@ietf.org>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
>     <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