Re: [Lsr] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-lls-interface-id-08: (with COMMENT)

["Acee Lindem (acee)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ben, 

On 10/30/18, 9:09 PM, "Benjamin Kaduk" <[e-mail]> wrote:

    On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 02:28:12PM +0000, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
    > Hi Ben,
    > 
    > On 10/30/18, 10:08 AM, "Benjamin Kaduk" <[e-mail]> wrote:
    > 
    >     Hi Acee,
    >     
    >     On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 01:51:42PM +0000, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
    >     > Hi Ben, 
    >     > 
    >     > On 10/25/18, 8:22 AM, "Benjamin Kaduk" <[e-mail]> wrote:
    >     > 
    >     >     Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
    >     >     draft-ietf-ospf-lls-interface-id-08: No Objection
    >     >     
    >     >     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
    >     >     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-ospf-lls-interface-id/
    >     >     
    >     >     
    >     >     
    >     >     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    >     >     COMMENT:
    >     >     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    >     >     
    >     >     Sending a new type of information to the peer usually involves a privacy
    >     >     considerations analysis.  I don't expect there to be anything worrisome
    >     >     here, but some text in the document indicating that the analysis has been
    >     >     done would be reassuring.
    >     > 
    >     > Can you suggest some text? I was thinking:
    >     
    >     I'm not sure that I could -- I don't have confidence that I understand the
    >     system well enough to frame something in a complete and correct way.
    >     
    >     >    Since the scope of the interface ID is limited to the advertising OSPF router 
    >     >    uniquely identifying links, there are no privacy concerns associated with its
    >     >    advertisement.
    >     
    >     I wonder if there is a step missing to link these together -- that the
    >     links are generally fixed and immobile, or that the scope of distribution
    >     is limited to a set of trusted peers, perhaps?
    > 
    > The point I'm making is that since the interface ID is only unique for the network device, it doesn't provide any clue as to the identity of the device owner or traffic transiting the device. Hence, there are no privacy considerations associated with extension. It is also true that routing peers are trusted but that is a moot point for this extension In the context of privacy. 
    
    Ah, I see; thanks.  How does "The interface ID is locally assigned by the
    advertising OSPF router as a uniquifier and need not be unique in any
    broader context; it is not expected to contain any information about the
    device owner or traffic transiting the device, so there are no privacy
    concerns associated with its advertisement." sound?

Sure - that is clearer. In fact, I realized that it wasn't obvious after explaining it in my last Email. I'd avoid "uniquifier" since it isn't in the dictionary yielding: 

    The interface ID is assigned by the advertising OSPF router as a locally
    unique identifier and need not be unique in any broader context; it is 
    not expected to contain any information about the device owner or
    traffic transiting the device, so there are no privacy oncerns 
    associated with its advertisement.

Thanks,
Acee
    
    -Benjamin