[Spud] Whats missing in SPUD (was: Re: Multipath/Mobility (was Questions based on draft-trammell-spud-req-00))

Toerless Eckert <eckert@cisco.com> Mon, 10 August 2015 18:41 UTC

Return-Path: <eckert@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: spud@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spud@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 745D11B3C90 for <spud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 11:41:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 5Ocr-8Qc266e for <spud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 11:41:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 527221B3C81 for <spud@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 11:41:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1278; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1439232109; x=1440441709; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:mime-version; bh=QVDZmf11uJ/mm3ywHJLyTQqAA67tkHqYs2WvbK1p0Nw=; b=fk6f7EJqLmdIdnva8qggoWSxdzvl8dmNm/i8hdihvMvYFCpXf86B2G7O JGiK4w2DNsrI61xfBzyVrQBQpQWJMTfe1H3FD2YvNf/HbeprZIBGPQVOK lvJzYA2zEhBNdoDkD/8gHlqYiXbtnIQYmQ4b5Zs7gx03fbLKMmiXbXnH2 Q=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,647,1432598400"; d="scan'208";a="23012586"
Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 10 Aug 2015 18:41:48 +0000
Received: from mcast-linux1.cisco.com (mcast-linux1.cisco.com [172.27.244.121]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t7AIfmcD008912 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 10 Aug 2015 18:41:48 GMT
Received: from mcast-linux1.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by mcast-linux1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t7AIflXN016099; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 11:41:47 -0700
Received: (from eckert@localhost) by mcast-linux1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id t7AIflGO016098; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 11:41:47 -0700
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 11:41:47 -0700
From: Toerless Eckert <eckert@cisco.com>
To: Christian Huitema <huitema@microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <20150810184147.GW1667@cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spud/sxPvsscPA6zgCYSf2i18EEFzQro>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 13:20:38 -0700
Cc: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com>, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, Mirja =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=FChlewind?= <mirja.kuehlewind@tik.ee.ethz.ch>, Joe Hildebrand <jhildebr@cisco.com>, "spud@ietf.org" <spud@ietf.org>, Jana Iyengar <jri@google.com>, Ken Calvert <calvert@netlab.uky.edu>, Brian Trammell <ietf@trammell.ch>
Subject: [Spud] Whats missing in SPUD (was: Re: Multipath/Mobility (was Questions based on draft-trammell-spud-req-00))
X-BeenThere: spud@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Session Protocol Underneath Datagrams <spud.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spud>, <mailto:spud-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spud/>
List-Post: <mailto:spud@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spud-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spud>, <mailto:spud-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 18:41:50 -0000

As a generic side thought based on Christians concern about privacy
(why would an app want to show a shared Tube-ID across multipath/mobile flows for example).

To me, the problem is best explained on the following workflow:

"Here is your new ID card".
"Why would i want to have an ID card, everybody who checks ID cards is evil"
"You do not have to show your ID card if you don't want to"
"Lets go to the bar"
"ID card please"
"Booze or anonymity... that's the question"
"Lets choose booze"

So, whats missing in SPUD (or any prior endpoint<->network) signaling is the
signaling element "If you do not show ID card, you will not get booze" or
"if you do not use a cross-subflow Tube-ID, your load-sharing, mobility or multipath
performance will suck or not work".

Using the same Tube-ID is just one example. This interaction really applies
to any possible signaling element: The anonymity freak will argue to his
death that he doesn't want to provide information to the network... unless
the network can persuade him that the benefit of showing outweights the
loss of anonymity. 

This is primarily a question of creating a data-model of what the network can offer
and tie that to a data model for what to show to get it....

Cheers
    Toerless