Re: [VIPR] VIPR privacy issue

Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca> Fri, 27 January 2012 00:28 UTC

Return-Path: <fluffy@fluffy.im>
X-Original-To: vipr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: vipr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 039EF21F8555 for <vipr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 16:28:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.536
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.536 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.063, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h-f4H-z8t3zv for <vipr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 16:28:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7996021F85B6 for <vipr@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 16:28:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-iy0-f172.google.com with SMTP id f6so1720217iag.31 for <vipr@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 16:28:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.43.48.132 with SMTP id uw4mr3491255icb.17.1327624082060; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 16:28:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.4.100] (128-107-239-233.cisco.com. [128.107.239.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id x18sm5824417ibi.2.2012.01.26.16.28.01 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 26 Jan 2012 16:28:01 -0800 (PST)
Sender: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@fluffy.im>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>
In-Reply-To: <4F21A121.10403@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 17:28:00 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <5466D9E6-3859-41A7-9A54-D23DC6D775C6@iii.ca>
References: <4F1F1A42.1030201@acm.org> <9734F726-C0A8-42D6-87A4-65535D5F3E80@bbn.com> <4F217CC9.4080802@acm.org> <50D0BC87-EC6C-401E-A2F9-A05AC60D5EF0@bbn.com> <4F2183D0.3070809@acm.org> <373FB643-AE7A-473C-A7AB-09F9A9E7093B@bbn.com> <4F21A121.10403@acm.org>
To: Marc Petit-Huguenin <petithug@acm.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: "vipr@ietf.org" <vipr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [VIPR] VIPR privacy issue
X-BeenThere: vipr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Verification Involving PSTN Reachability working group <vipr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/vipr>, <mailto:vipr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vipr>
List-Post: <mailto:vipr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:vipr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vipr>, <mailto:vipr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 00:28:03 -0000

On Jan 26, 2012, at 11:53 AM, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:

> Cullen's email in
> P2PSIP was unambiguous in saying that doing this will push VIPR to 2015/2020.

That is not at all what I said. The 2020 was a date where I think we might be possible to have a location privacy solution. As folks may recall from the BOFs when P2PSIP was formed, Cisco had expressed that one of these cases it was interested in was when the communications were not at all anonymous but the location needed to be. The example used as Vice President of the US during an emergency may be moved to a location that is kept very secret but they need to communicate security and with authentication to a large number of people. Todays internet protocols don't offer much in the form of location privacy - with the possible exception of TOR. Some person with General in their title even showed up at Vancouver and Prague IETFs. When P2PSIP got chartered, location privacy got drooped out because it was viewed as it would just be too much to solve. I think I argued for doing location privacy at the time but I was wrong - it clearly would have been too much to do in the first version. 

However, I still hope that we might have a standards based location privacy system by 2020 but others think it is better to do this type of thing just a a proprietary system so who knows.