Re: [sacm] [draft-ietf-sacm-requirements] Do we need a privacy section (#55)
Ron Colvin <Ron.Colvin@nasa.gov> Fri, 07 August 2015 14:00 UTC
Return-Path: <ron.colvin@nasa.gov>
X-Original-To: sacm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sacm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AABB1B2D7E for <sacm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 07:00:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_FILL_THIS_FORM_SHORT=0.01, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 w6zzzt3lOfhc for <sacm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 07:00:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ndmsnpf03.ndc.nasa.gov (ndmsnpf03.ndc.nasa.gov [IPv6:2001:4d0:8302:1100::103]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5923F1B2D87 for <sacm@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 07:00:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ndmsppt103.ndc.nasa.gov (ndmsppt103.ndc.nasa.gov [198.117.0.68]) by ndmsnpf03.ndc.nasa.gov (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED5742D80B9; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 08:57:29 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from NDMSCHT113.ndc.nasa.gov (ndmscht113-pub.ndc.nasa.gov [198.117.0.213]) by ndmsppt103.ndc.nasa.gov (8.15.0.59/8.15.0.59) with ESMTP id t77E0Rsl009903; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 09:00:27 -0500
Received: from [128.154.226.43] (128.154.226.43) by smtp02.ndc.nasa.gov (198.117.0.213) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.224.2; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 09:00:27 -0500
References: <sacmwg/draft-ietf-sacm-requirements/issues/55@github.com> <sacmwg/draft-ietf-sacm-requirements/issues/55/128680469@github.com>
To: sacmwg/draft-ietf-sacm-requirements <reply+00a6c4d1129080622850c5e27de14219f5265ff1c931c67092cf0000000111dc5ac392a169ce05cd0b75@reply.github.com>, sacmwg/draft-ietf-sacm-requirements <draft-ietf-sacm-requirements@noreply.github.com>
From: Ron Colvin <Ron.Colvin@nasa.gov>
Message-ID: <55C4BA28.2010006@nasa.gov>
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2015 10:01:12 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <sacmwg/draft-ietf-sacm-requirements/issues/55/128680469@github.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"; boundary="------------ms060205030003080309020707"
X-Originating-IP: [128.154.226.43]
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2015-08-07_07:, , signatures=0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sacm/oOOnOm4Rg7yP4f3xEvQzWU_q-UQ>
Cc: sacm <sacm@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sacm] [draft-ietf-sacm-requirements] Do we need a privacy section (#55)
X-BeenThere: sacm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Ron.Colvin@nasa.gov
List-Id: SACM WG mail list <sacm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sacm>, <mailto:sacm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sacm/>
List-Post: <mailto:sacm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sacm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sacm>, <mailto:sacm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2015 14:00:33 -0000
My understanding on PII is that as soon as I associate a person with an email address, phone number or physical address I have PII that I need to protect. If we associate a user id, account or user provisioned PKI with a device including possibly a MAC address we probably have the same concerns. I think in many cases user certificates are used for device authentication and I thought that was an attribute that was highly desirable. On 8/7/15 7:38 AM, adammontville wrote: > > I agree that privacy needs to be covered. > > Still, when we talk about /identity/ or /identification/ in this > working group, we're talking about something different than PII data. > As such, there's this other issue for the information model > sacmwg/draft-ietf-sacm-information-model#21 > <https://github.com/sacmwg/draft-ietf-sacm-information-model/issues/21>, > which is seeking to get feedback on what a useful term other than > identity might be. The present candidate seems to be /designate/. So, > instead of "identify an endpoint" we would "designate an endpoint" or > "collect AVPs from the designated set of endpoints". > > I also wouldn't go so far as to say that we're performing pervasive > monitoring in the sense that mainstream media understands the term. > Our scope has always been single-enterprise, and it remains that way. > > Again, privacy is important, but I don't think we're talking about PII > as much as might be implied by our choice of terms. > > — > Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub > <https://github.com/sacmwg/draft-ietf-sacm-requirements/issues/55#issuecomment-128680469>. > > > > _______________________________________________ > sacm mailing list > sacm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sacm -- ******************************************************** Ron Colvin CISSP, CAP, CEH Certified Security Analyst NASA - Goddard Space Flight Center <ron.colvin@nasa.gov> Direct phone 301-286-2451 NASA Jabber (rdcolvin@im.nasa.gov) AIM rcolvin13 NASA LCS (ronald.d.colvin@nasa.gov) ********************************************************
- [sacm] [draft-ietf-sacm-requirements] Do we need … Jim Schaad
- Re: [sacm] [draft-ietf-sacm-requirements] Do we n… adammontville
- Re: [sacm] [draft-ietf-sacm-requirements] Do we n… Ron Colvin
- Re: [sacm] [draft-ietf-sacm-requirements] Do we n… Ira McDonald
- Re: [sacm] [draft-ietf-sacm-requirements] Do we n… Kathleen Moriarty
- Re: [sacm] [draft-ietf-sacm-requirements] Do we n… Lisa Lorenzin
- Re: [sacm] [draft-ietf-sacm-requirements] Do we n… Kathleen Moriarty
- Re: [sacm] [draft-ietf-sacm-requirements] Do we n… Jim Schaad
- Re: [sacm] [draft-ietf-sacm-requirements] Do we n… Kathleen Moriarty
- Re: [sacm] [draft-ietf-sacm-requirements] Do we n… llorenzin
- Re: [sacm] [draft-ietf-sacm-requirements] Do we n… dromasca