Re: [mpls] IPR poll on draft-bryant-mpls-flow-ident

Hi Stephen

Always willing to talk and receive feedback.

Perhaps we need a guide to considering privacy issues
in protocols, in the same way that we have a useful
guide to writing privacy sections.

The fundamental point I was making was that in regular
MPLS in an LDP context you can tell where a packet is headed
but not where it came from (a comment that us network
layer folks made at the privacy workshop). If the payload is
other than IP this makes it difficult to figure out which PE
injected the packet and hence have any idea where the
origin was. By indicating the source PE (needed for
network management) you remove some of this anonymity
from the MPLS layer.

- Stewart

On 26/11/2015 01:28, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> I'm afraid I don't understand section 11 at all. (It's title
> is "privacy considerations" but it's current content bemuses me;-)
>
> If this is adopted and if that section gets fixed (e.g. to become
> some kind of applicability statement), then that would be a fine
> outcome.
>
> There's a bit of work to be done to figure out when this is a safe
> or unsafe thing to do from the privacy perspective and to document
> that, but such work should be something the WG is well able for.
>
> Put another way: I support adoption of this (not that I know squat
> about MPLS;-) on the assumption that section 11 gets fixed. And I'm
> confident fixing that should not be hard.
>
> But in any case - I am very happy to see section 11 in an MPLS
> document - recognition that privacy is an issue, even at this layer,
> does represent progress. (Thanks to the authors for that.)
>
> S.
>
>
> On 12/11/15 16:28, Ross Callon wrote:
>> Working Group,
>>
>> The authors of draft-bryant-mpls-flow-ident have told us that the
>> draft is ready to be polled to see if we have consensus to make it a working
>> group document.
>>
>> Before we start the adoption poll we will do an IPR poll. This mail starts the IPR poll.
>>
>> Are you aware of any IPR that applies to draft-bryant-mpls-flow-ident?
>>
>> If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules
>> (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
>>
>> Currently there are no IPR disclosures that relate to this document.
>>
>> If you are listed as a document author or contributor please respond to
>> this email regardless of whether or not you are aware of any relevant
>> IPR. *The response needs to be sent to the MPLS wg mailing list.* The
>> document will not advance to the next stage until a response has been
>> received from each author and contributor.
>>
>> If you are on the MPLS WG email list but are not listed as an author or
>> contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of any
>> IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules.
>>
>> Thanks, Ross
>> (as MPLS WG co-chair)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> mpls mailing list
>> mpls@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>>