Re: [Pearg] Proposed work on the topic of: IP Address Privacy

sara dickinson <sara@sinodun.com> Mon, 24 May 2021 10:33 UTC

Return-Path: <sara@sinodun.com>
X-Original-To: pearg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pearg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 706583A231A for <pearg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 May 2021 03:33:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.4
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sinodun.com
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 wP9vwUPGm8xg for <pearg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 May 2021 03:33:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from haggis.mythic-beasts.com (haggis.mythic-beasts.com [IPv6:2a00:1098:0:86:1000:0:2:1]) (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 49BEB3A2318 for <pearg@irtf.org>; Mon, 24 May 2021 03:33:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sinodun.com ; s=mythic-beasts-k1; h=To:Date:Subject:From; bh=XoWqBcD7W/UgwFfhmbVbkWTv/xcTZEqSmaLVAxyoxAw=; b=abqApsxe8apwYobLbmqNZd9gll ucF6e3E8f52HBQyU51nKWIyxBkCs41n8jyja+D05krcGZVNnwQajUefURFeXRoKoJewrQFz60myHD BB5bibRoMcrvESyvKA+ag5RUkFZrrZKeh9pD/cCRMihIQTdiZS/k/ChP/IbJBGoT//KCkn73QjnaL 4AvXgONlDbPImxtPeRqOmrze4X3IRwyDdvfcyu25lCwpB4Wjouk30ikBqOwnvjMptmgRPV4iQlKB5 c5jYdptoaD05wVswG/95+35nOMMjP47v9/mfbE2xKFhb2yBnKuUUmu1RZ3zcLV8akDrKgzxux+R+N Rl/VYZWQ==;
Received: from [62.232.251.194] (port=13806 helo=[172.27.240.2]) by haggis.mythic-beasts.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92.3) (envelope-from <sara@sinodun.com>) id 1ll7tT-00037v-8x for pearg@irtf.org; Mon, 24 May 2021 11:33:07 +0100
From: sara dickinson <sara@sinodun.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_0DB1980B-5E13-40B9-81DC-B274C1968899"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.6\))
Date: Mon, 24 May 2021 11:33:05 +0100
References: <50FDA194-93E4-488E-B80D-5AE134FD5D82@sinodun.com>
To: pearg@irtf.org
In-Reply-To: <50FDA194-93E4-488E-B80D-5AE134FD5D82@sinodun.com>
Message-Id: <FED1CE20-F79F-48B6-8295-010A6B0D1462@sinodun.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.6)
X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: -16
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pearg/vutkPbrrzIrPgFW_8ZBQuOxmQds>
Subject: Re: [Pearg] Proposed work on the topic of: IP Address Privacy
X-BeenThere: pearg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Privacy Enhancements and Assessment Proposed RG <pearg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/pearg>, <mailto:pearg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pearg/>
List-Post: <mailto:pearg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pearg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/pearg>, <mailto:pearg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 May 2021 10:33:16 -0000

Hi All,

Many thanks to all who responded and expressed interest in this work. The chairs will follow up with specific people to get an initial draft together in the near future.

To answer a couple of specific questions/comments:

> 1) Will it focus on "IP Address",  any conderation about BLE/Wi-Fi MAC Address?


I believe the aim is to focus on IP address privacy (which is a large enough topic in itself). If there is interest in working on similar analysis of other such identifiers in parallel I would suggest proposing that work to the list after the first draft on IP address privacy is available (for context).

> 1) I might decrease the focus on 'replacement signals' and increase focus on finding ways to enhance the privacy of existing uses of IP addresses.


Yes - that aspect was missing from the original list and I agree that would be useful research.

Best regards

Sara.



> On 14 May 2021, at 10:42, Sara Dickinson <sara@sinodun.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi PEARG,
> 
> This is a belated follow up to the Interim meeting and IETF110 discussion on the topic of "IP Address Privacy".
> 
> There appeared to be interest in working on one or more documents to capture the current status and future research directions in this space. A general proposal for such work could include:
> 
> * An analysis of the current use cases, attempting to categorise/group such use cases where commonalities exist
> * Generating requirements for proposed 'replacement signals' from this analysis (these could be different for each category/group of use cases)
> * Research to evaluate existing technologies or propose new mechanisms for such signals
> 
> One request was to have a broad scope for the range of use cases considered. We may need a first pass at the initial analysis to see if this is really feasible.
> 
> The chairs would like to hear if
> 1) The above is a reasonable summary of work that folks think could/should be done in PEARG
> 2) If people are interested in volunteering to work on some or all of this
> 
> Please let us know your thoughts on this topic during the next couple of weeks. Before the end of May, we’ll try to summarise the responses and the plan for moving forward.
> 
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Sara, on behalf of the chairs.
> --
> Pearg mailing list
> Pearg@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/pearg