Re: [Pidloc] Pidloc in IETF Prague #104

<> Tue, 16 April 2019 13:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 676A8120186 for <>; Tue, 16 Apr 2019 06:53:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.299
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XsrR2HtySFV4 for <>; Tue, 16 Apr 2019 06:53:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 890A2120458 for <>; Tue, 16 Apr 2019 06:53:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;;; q=dns/txt; s=dtag1; t=1555422801; x=1586958801; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=L6xp6/edqVpLSBiUjiE+7g9BNy1QkRErPR9M8cPU5O0=; b=Zpb+W/yh1K9lYmCqmfHXWZRhYNOlW0KsH6hsFqcHUh5kgXCnW5+72ial VCdeGJ4GzTODTn3oSB/Tu9JMZDJccG2ID2IeOnug66fn1+bH4+clv/miX 1Jf+ORlVJ923dHcbth3mdZV3quIujUrxtvX4f7TVEcr8PTO1Lw5FPJOsY ACvsyv6ZB5f5Kfds8NAWEPBaO49EIgQlwCmS13omSq1n5s0PWqNdZI2V/ sBdsSuVra2NWFPaOKJ26cjYQTbZHl7Vc1xJdqQ8r+RCeL+J79pnx2Abgf qzMNMS5gWgbT8rS9xQT67yCtoyUZyPoYjd9iDIB+bHINbuyXRYLNb39mg A==;
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 16 Apr 2019 15:53:19 +0200
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.60,358,1549926000"; d="scan'208,217";a="518033089"
X-MGA-submission: =?us-ascii?q?MDFvpPhCe80PoKsEEj5ltszQ6ZIXSQEwwcHU/t?= =?us-ascii?q?kxLsTkEMxCjGZIWOaW7ozkKa5xHQz8Dn4tuG6kbSHrpeBuf8kb/9BZUu?= =?us-ascii?q?P2CQ29foLncbTlbpEHL5lTVbqrVaHuQC/YF97qLBCXrk/WycdtqkG0l4?= =?us-ascii?q?SG4nZrzQjgLE9emzEbDR570g=3D=3D?=
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/AES256-SHA; 16 Apr 2019 15:53:17 +0200
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Tue, 16 Apr 2019 15:53:16 +0200
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 16 Apr 2019 15:53:16 +0200
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Tue, 16 Apr 2019 15:53:16 +0200
Received: from FRXPR01MB0664.DEUPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.DE ( by FRXPR01MB0664.DEUPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.DE ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1792.19; Tue, 16 Apr 2019 13:53:15 +0000
Received: from FRXPR01MB0664.DEUPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.DE ([fe80::2983:138f:af66:7084]) by FRXPR01MB0664.DEUPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.DE ([fe80::2983:138f:af66:7084%2]) with mapi id 15.20.1792.020; Tue, 16 Apr 2019 13:53:15 +0000
From: <>
To: <>
CC: <>, <>, <>
Thread-Topic: [Pidloc] Pidloc in IETF Prague #104
Thread-Index: AdTmQ1mz3M0UO0PHTCCpL9dcG6vIRwABpJ6AA4QP3kA=
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2019 13:53:15 +0000
References: <LEXPR01MB06697AD320805F58B004443FD15A0@LEXPR01MB0669.DEUPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.DE> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is );
x-originating-ip: []
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 69376a61-2118-4d46-084b-08d6c272dfa4
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(5600140)(711020)(4605104)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:FRXPR01MB0664;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: FRXPR01MB0664:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 4
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <FRXPR01MB0664BE266AF9C8839A4CB845D1240@FRXPR01MB0664.DEUPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.DE>
x-forefront-prvs: 000947967F
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(136003)(39860400002)(376002)(346002)(396003)(366004)(51914003)(199004)(189003)(6246003)(106356001)(7736002)(105586002)(8936002)(102836004)(76176011)(33656002)(55016002)(53936002)(53546011)(6306002)(54896002)(9686003)(2906002)(74482002)(26005)(52396003)(7696005)(236005)(6116002)(5660300002)(790700001)(1730700003)(81166006)(8676002)(81156014)(66066001)(6916009)(97736004)(3846002)(5640700003)(316002)(478600001)(4326008)(229853002)(54906003)(2351001)(606006)(75402003)(14454004)(5024004)(256004)(72206003)(2501003)(186003)(11346002)(86362001)(966005)(68736007)(71190400001)(66574012)(413944005)(446003)(71200400001)(486006)(476003); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:FRXPR01MB0664; H:FRXPR01MB0664.DEUPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.DE; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1;
received-spf: None ( does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: hXB/SozJnMtfEGnsnozlOdVr1MVF9jbk1+DbZ6Ay3u8h5qZhlJ8STYSkAFFX7R5IpDrRHcfcYlNjIPinPNidKr48exgvzcfTYMNtLLHX2spzr3Th2j75GCSqxjyPe8lgHl0u4kerpVzVWGjvnuTJLh6jVupy4gYoU7SwhI3mwIOZUv/ll3sbDoP8KcWPggNjvLKtqn8cbicCHWRXxT0bW+biuI1Z4BZ0FuXka3KtbzAxb0vK9d4ahKuQMi37ZsuYoeWQVZ2ndB4bscXq+l16/cGs9cdA+oltZA/NhE7eb4GZC8kLYNSHEOsV9djLGpdkYOzXB6ewA9vwN04NIpCYeuwyD327RUF71BjKSvy8S6XeonVq6Cu5Cw6hF2ueLe8GDcOmOjRH8TpTmB2DBp+EWm9KnkE/Lmc0S1HZCkjGcA8=
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_FRXPR01MB066429AC69CED822C889A1ADD1240FRXPR01MB0664DEUP_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 69376a61-2118-4d46-084b-08d6c272dfa4
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 16 Apr 2019 13:53:15.2432 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bde4dffc-4b60-4cf6-8b04-a5eeb25f5c4f
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: FRXPR01MB0664
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Pidloc] Pidloc in IETF Prague #104
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2019 13:53:25 -0000

Dear all,
sorry for delayed reply:
I agree that data plane will also be in scope of privacy issues for Id-Loc protocols – if I understood correctly the use case on ‘Location exposure of nearest User Plane Function to local (non-3GPP) Data Networks’ described by Marco and Umberto in addresses data plane issues.
@Marco and Umberto: ‘Traffic Identifier’ and ‘UPF/DPN N6 endpoint’ here serve as Id and Loc, right?
Kind regards

From: Behcet Sarikaya <>
Sent: Freitag, 29. März 2019 17:10
To: von Hugo, Dirk <>
Subject: Re: [Pidloc] Pidloc in IETF Prague #104

Hi Dirk,

Thanks for the minutes.

Let me add that there was some discussion on whether we should concentrate the privacy work on the control or data plane.
I thought the conclusion was control plane. However, thinking a little bit more on this, I came to the conclusion that we also need to work on the data plane.
The reason being as some previous work has shown, changing identifiers/locators that the UE uses from one session to another  improves a lot the privacy issues.

What do you think?


On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 10:52 AM <<>> wrote:
Dear all,
as announced before we actually had our side meeting here in Prague and some fruitful discussions.
I’d like to share with you some notes of the 1-hour session where seven people attended on site and about four more on the phone/webex. Sorry for the inconvenience of a sub-optimum audio connection.
I will also attach the slides shown and the link provided by Marco.

Dirk presented chairs slides - focus was more on the open questions (gaps and problems) to be solved than on solutions.
Erik commented on use cases as edge computing in IoT (location is an issue here) and consumers sharing voluntarily Id and Location on application layer – which of course also should not be leaked beyond intended recipients.
VPN like closed groups pose less problem than rather consumer scale device numbers (walled garden or separate domains).

Shunsuke presented 5G use case attempting to include Id-Loc compatible with 3GPP architecture.
Location exposure of nearest UPF to local (non-3GPP) Data Networks (maybe untrusted) may raise privacy issues on related location information (from UPF to derive that of UE).

Next steps might be a more complete collection and classification of use cases and thereof identification of a requirements set to be demanded from potential solutions.

Marco and Umberto promised and meanwhile did to provide a link to related slides in DMM (draft at pointing to the LDN problem:

ID-LOC applies to the data network’s DPN and the user’s current (edge) UPF (serving as session anchor).

A question was whether slicing shall be provided via Id-Loc? Rather than that a low latency service on DP/UP would be the goal.
Somebody mentioned that also tunneling between two endpoints could be seen as Id-Loc approach.
Thanks for comments and updates/corrections by all participants.
Let’s continue discussion on the list.

Kind regards

Pidloc mailing list<>