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

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Wed, 31 October 2018 01:26 UTC

Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
X-Original-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4163C130DD6; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 18:26:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Quarantine-ID: <4sYhNPQYtAOP>
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER SECTION, Non-encoded 8-bit data (char 9C hex): Received: ...s kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)\n\t\234by outgoing.mit[...]
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 4sYhNPQYtAOP; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 18:26:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dmz-mailsec-scanner-7.mit.edu (dmz-mailsec-scanner-7.mit.edu [18.7.68.36]) (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 D08ED1277CC; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 18:26:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: 12074424-3b1ff700000060f3-58-5bd904c8d236
Received: from mailhub-auth-2.mit.edu ( [18.7.62.36]) (using TLS with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by dmz-mailsec-scanner-7.mit.edu (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id 80.B3.24819.9C409DB5; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 21:26:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (OUTGOING-AUTH-1.MIT.EDU [18.9.28.11]) by mailhub-auth-2.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.9.2) with ESMTP id w9V1QRQA027399; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 21:26:28 -0400
Received: from kduck.kaduk.org (24-107-191-124.dhcp.stls.mo.charter.com [24.107.191.124]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) œby outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id w9V1QM8Y018877 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 30 Oct 2018 21:26:25 -0400
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 20:26:22 -0500
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>, "lsr-chairs@ietf.org" <lsr-chairs@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ospf-lls-interface-id@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-lls-interface-id@ietf.org>, Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.ietf@gmail.com>, "aretana.ietf@gmail.com" <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20181031012622.GD45914@kduck.kaduk.org>
References: <154047014077.16281.149253858167058600.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <58B0C6F5-6153-4117-B214-176A9B68189C@cisco.com> <20181030140824.GS45914@kduck.kaduk.org> <3D68100D-578B-416D-A7B7-AAE9DC3E9D40@cisco.com> <20181031010919.GZ45914@kduck.kaduk.org> <33889EBA-E73A-48E2-B6B0-40985F7F4FE8@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <33889EBA-E73A-48E2-B6B0-40985F7F4FE8@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22)
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrIKsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUixG6nonuK5Wa0we8v3BaT385jtrhxaAOT xbXv99ksZvyZyGyx/upJFosTT1awWtxaf4zZgd1jyu+NrB47Z91l91iy5CdTAHMUl01Kak5m WWqRvl0CV8aUFwYFsxUqVry4wtzA2CfWxcjJISFgIvH60CGmLkYuDiGBNUwSfZMfMUM4Gxkl 2iavYYNw7jJJPP7ygA2khUVAVaK77weYzSagItHQfRmog4NDREBTYst7FpB6ZoH9TBLXj24A qxEWSJZ4tOgsE4jNC7Tu+rPXUOt2M0k0fm1mhEgISpyc+YQFxGYWUJf4M+8S2FBmAWmJ5f84 IMLyEs1bZzOD2JwCthJXzuwGs0UFlCX29h1in8AoOAvJpFlIJs1CmDQLyaQFjCyrGGVTcqt0 cxMzc4pTk3WLkxPz8lKLdM31cjNL9FJTSjcxgmPCRWUHY3eP9yFGAQ5GJR7eB8k3ooVYE8uK K3MPMUpyMCmJ8p7/eD1aiC8pP6UyI7E4I76oNCe1+BCjBAezkgjv1Aqgct6UxMqq1KJ8mJQ0 B4uSOO/ElsXRQgLpiSWp2ampBalFMFkZDg4lCV4J5pvRQoJFqempFWmZOSUIaSYOTpDhPEDD 3UFqeIsLEnOLM9Mh8qcYFaXEedmBSUdIACSRUZoH1wtKWRLZ+2teMYoDvSLM+xWknQeY7uC6 XwENZgIazMUOcnVxSSJCSqqBcf67QmnZ1X9tX+89fmf7xxq7RQl1jdG3fto1yJl57njSdM+T p9X5/H+N1UFMvnMPzcz3fLgvQCCJYRfHantxtRPiJtcfznoyfeEMfdlUT82uUq+5dxKjnodP c+6qi/vnwrnqb0jNkZUXN5xRr+Jx2e1Vmi1+t+TfGc+f94NnfK+uy2PMyUxoV2Ipzkg01GIu Kk4EAL/GFmw0AwAA
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/bp5LhzZBVyQui3MwS21uHBxFQho>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-lls-interface-id-08: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: lsr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Link State Routing Working Group <lsr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsr/>
List-Post: <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 01:26:38 -0000

On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 01:21:14AM +0000, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
> Hi Ben, 
> 
> On 10/30/18, 9:09 PM, "Benjamin Kaduk" <kaduk@mit.edu>; 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" <kaduk@mit.edu>; 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" <kaduk@mit.edu>; 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 concerns 
>     associated with its advertisement.

Ship it! :)

Thanks,

Benjamin