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

On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 8:02 AM, Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com> 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. 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.

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
> Pidloc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pidloc
>