Subject: [DMM] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-dmm-4283mnids-04: (with DISCUSS)

From: "Mirja Kuehlewind" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 09:08:07 -0800

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dmm-4283mnids-04: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmm-4283mnids/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I would realy like to see the following changes in the security
considerations section:
OLD
"If used in the MNID extension as defined in this
   document, the packet including the MNID extension should be
encrypted
   so that personal information or trackable identifiers would not be
   inadvertently disclosed to passive observers."
NEW
"If used in the MNID extension as defined in this
   document, the packet including the MNID extension SHOULD be
encrypted
   so that personal information or trackable identifiers would not be
   inadvertently disclosed to passive observers."
Or even better make it a MUST? Is there a reason for only having a
SHOULD?

as well as the following change:
OLD
"Moreover, MNIDs containing sensitive identifiers might only be used
   for signaling during initial network entry. "
NEW
"Moreover, MNIDs containing sensitive identifiers MUST only be used
   for signaling during initial network entry and MUST NOT be leaked to
   other networks."

---

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2017 04:05:55 +0000

HI Mirja,

> On Feb 10, 2017, at 12:08 PM, Mirja Kuehlewind <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
>   inadvertently disclosed to passive observers.”

Is this just for changing the "should" to upper case? I think that makes sense.

> Or even better make it a MUST? Is there a reason for only having a

Authors, any specific reason for this to be a SHOULD?

>   other networks.”

The statement in OLD: is just a statement of fact that in some networks use temporary identifiers for reattachment and they use long term (and hence sensitive) identifiers only at initial attach. I don’t think it makes sense to change this to 2119 language.

Thanks
Suresh

---

From: "Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2017 10:00:54 +0100

Hi Suresh,

sounds all good! I’m happy to quickly resolve my discuss if the authors agree!

Mirja

> Am 11.02.2017 um 05:05 schrieb Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>:
> 
> HI Mirja,
>

---

From: Charlie Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 13:06:40 -0800

Hello Mirja and Suresh,

I am happy to make the proposed changes as agreed below.

Regards,
Charlie P.

---

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 22:04:20 +0000

> On Feb 13, 2017, at 4:06 PM, Charlie Perkins <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hello Mirja and Suresh,
> 

Sounds good Charlie. Please fold these changes into your next rev then once you have converged with Dale.

Regards
Suresh

---

From: Mirja Kühlewind <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 13:46:09 +0100

Hi Charlie,

can you please also answer the question below on SHOULD vs. MUST? Thanks!

Also, does it maybe make sense to then add something in the security section 
that information should/must not be leaked to other networks?

Thanks!
Mirja

---

From: Charlie Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 16:08:28 -0800

Hello Mirja,

My previous answer was intended to mean that I would change to MUST.

Would you be willing to suggest some text about the non-leakage? I 
thought that the point of strengthening to MUST was to ensure that 
sensitive identifier information was not leaked.  If there is something 
more to be said, I'll be happy to say it.

Regards,
Charlie P.

On 2/15/2017 4:46 AM, Mirja Kühlewind wrote:
> Also, does it maybe make sense to then add something in the security 
> section that information should/must not be leaked to other networks?
>
> Thanks!
> Mirja
>
>
>>>>> Please refer to 
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>>>> The statement in OLD: is just a statement of fact that in some 
>>>> networks use temporary identifiers for reattachment and they use 
>>>> long term (and hence sensitive) identifiers only at initial attach. 
>>>> I don’t think it makes sense to change this to 2119 language.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Suresh
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

---

From: Mirja Kühlewind <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 13:56:20 +0100

Hi Charlie,

okay, yes I think a MUST is the right thing to do here and I probably already 
enough.

I'll clear my discuss now.

Mirja