Re: [Pidloc] draft-nordmark-id-loc-privacy

[Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 1:15 PM Tom Herbert <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 8:02 AM, Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > Hi Luigi, Dirk, all,
> >
> > So far we have a number of reviews on Erik's draft indicating some
> editorial
> > issues and asking for clarification of some parts. All that is good.
> >
> > What I suggest is that we should also look into what he is saying in that
> > draft, what is he suggesting as the future work to do?
> >
> > Here I am going to summary what I could find out:
> >
> > - We should concentrate on long-lived identifiers;
> >
> > - Worry not much on designing a privacy based unified mapping mapping
> system
> > which we had concentrated in our previous activity. This is because only
> > trusted devices can access the mappings  in an operator network
> >
> > - Instead worry about minimizing the privacy implication one can explore
> > limiting to which peers and when the ID/ locator binding are exposed.
> >
> > The cases where ID/locator bindings are exposed (especially any mobile
> > devices)
> > - Family and friends for example where are parents sharing young children
> > location
>
> I don't believe this case is relevant. There's already applications
> that I can use to track my kids (like Life360). These use the GPS in
> mobile devices and secure connections to trasmit location information;
> it's far more accurate and secure than trying to deriving location
> information from a few bits in an IP address.


Yes, this has already  been alluded to in the draft:

Today such location sharing happens at an application layer using GPS
   coordinates.


I think it's a hard
> requirement that Identifiers (IP addresses in general) must not expose
> geo location or mobile devices, and it follows that identifier/locator
> bindings should never be shared outside a network except LEA orders.
>
>
Here is the rest of the above paragraph I quoted from Erik's draft:

But while such sharing is in effect, it wouldn't be
   unreasonable to also consider sharing IP locators to make it more
   efficient or more robust to e.g., route a video feed from one device
   to another.


What do you think?


Behcet

Tom
>
> > - In industrial IoT case, the devices belonging to the same company share
> > ID/locator bindings but not share the ID/locator binding with third
> parties
> >
> > In Section 6, the draft points to some possibilities on how this limiting
> > can be achieved:
> >
> > 1. pointing a locator for some fixed anchor point, like PGW or UPF
> >
> > 2. injecting routing prefixes for the ID prefixes into the normal routing
> > system
> >
> > 3. not providing any stable locators across this boundary; only allow
> > ephemeral IP addresses per session or otherwise limited exposure.
> >
> > In short, the draft is coming up with a lot work to do.
> > We suggest that the group takes a close look into all these points and
> see
> > what we can do :-)
> > Regards,
> > Behcet & Dirk
> >
> > --
> > Pidloc mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pidloc
> >
>