Re: [ipwave] MAC Address minor textual issue

Gentlemen;

Regardless if we are talking about MAC address changes or any other methods related to privacy, this would not be a data-plane MAC sub-layer function.

Fygs

From: its [mailto:its-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John Kenney
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 10:51 AM
To: Jérôme Härri <jerome.haerri@eurecom.fr>
Cc: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>; Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>; its@ietf.org
Subject: 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 <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

-- 

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