From nobody Fri Jan 24 07:41:35 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pidloc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pidloc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AF721200D6 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 07:41:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.748 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.748 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 1xDbv_Z7qvSk for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 07:41:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-yw1-xc2f.google.com (mail-yw1-xc2f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::c2f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D923B1200C5 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 07:41:28 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-yw1-xc2f.google.com with SMTP id t141so1010515ywc.11 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 07:41:28 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:reply-to:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=Y3swQY+436vOQfA4AezMs6Yk7KbqdwrDTHqVcaumslc=; b=VkxsS1dQ1KyVhkaTbAzAOqYp95n5+IvyC22NGXKH60uQAVhj2Km+fujSFsKr3bIK53 uudSuz0dzDLw2VIOv9Tfn9IomQYglWHWnyK0expk1Q9usQV7On+FwK6jJ/YalUYiMiC8 O1ipne9+URCwWL7LDiFDp63BRtKTKmWwgzyJazSNLmb9WY0b7vBmi6pTP1KhzCyCf6AR 5FfFJPVMHpXayh90EcNVQDLsHcYmGv8FIjc9NcztCM+QX6MhOXQaKPH0rrZqg6qt9brQ 7t7TqIthkCwWva/JEmV9elG3ehJKZucS7f+1hTlBYrlam+OGCMvZF5/NlyHx0Gt40Kud rbuA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:reply-to :from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Y3swQY+436vOQfA4AezMs6Yk7KbqdwrDTHqVcaumslc=; b=ai1H5UOSKOeYANQtk2Eq2fC327GXeX5GMyKb+zjPOGZ05F+BDB8YnvzXo7LFAHvJuK ADQqlCnhUjK4HzNVXyaKPYxAWWNwwE62uQFZUf3zX0sqU3OeCGdX1SK0T/5HXsFZe5CP B5C/h7sDBXGtgYFV91ViroDVeM7m+XLH4zueOlfLVfJMuNtLc1/ZfnFKrCYWC/WqGgym NRQd1si9jUmII6OxRDhCoSKgLeZhQFQGj+306me25mc781ud+j8WBryZbha/mpnN7LYr /vGLZqGKyqZosgz74VMSbzcE4kyd5Xw+TQD7gaJJ4NAZ6kcaMXuZw4t/2TX9tg9O9rRo NV4A== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXw+JA7doot8XDtc+1e3X764huL0RIHvrzvo84a/83WZjOcxTAC 6ezjieV6WKREtY6ChN9TXVAtMdir7eOQURBBvIiCYNW6 X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwkw5DdZZ77HamrmV7AthN8yizkDjrUkTS7FLCg/ft1uECwO/ztZwcLPNWxcjGhdu6UnFYVxMTmKIcgoEj2YGY= X-Received: by 2002:a81:1889:: with SMTP id 131mr2335672ywy.277.1579880487842; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 07:41:27 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <157985487134.22081.1953062526439829970.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <157985487134.22081.1953062526439829970.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Reply-To: sarikaya@ieee.org From: Behcet Sarikaya Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2020 09:41:17 -0600 Message-ID: To: pidloc@ietf.org Cc: Luigi Iannone , Erik Nordmark , Dirk von Hugo Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000043f813059ce4973d" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Pidloc] New Version Notification for draft-iannone-pidloc-privacy-00.txt X-BeenThere: pidloc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2020 15:41:34 -0000 --00000000000043f813059ce4973d Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hi all, Luigi submitted this draft which is basically revised version of Erik's earlier draft. Please read it and post your comments on the list. Regards, Dirk & Behcet On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 2:34 AM wrote: > > A new version of I-D, draft-iannone-pidloc-privacy-00.txt > has been successfully submitted by Luigi Iannone and posted to the > IETF repository. > > Name: draft-iannone-pidloc-privacy > Revision: 00 > Title: Privacy issues in Identifier/Locator Separation Systems > Document date: 2020-01-23 > Group: Individual Submission > Pages: 11 > URL: > https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iannone-pidloc-privacy-00.txt > Status: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iannone-pidloc-privacy/ > Htmlized: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iannone-pidloc-privacy-00 > Htmlized: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-iannone-pidloc-privacy > > > Abstract: > There exist several protocols and proposals that leverage on the > Identifier/Locator split paradigm, having some form of control plane > by which participating nodes can share their current Identifier-to- > Location information with their peers. This document explores some > of the privacy considerations for such a type of system. > > > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of > submission > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > > The IETF Secretariat > > --00000000000043f813059ce4973d Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi all,

Luigi submitted this draft whic= h is basically revised version of Erik's earlier draft.
Pleas= e read it and post your comments on the list.

Rega= rds,

Dirk & Behcet

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020= at 2:34 AM <internet-drafts= @ietf.org> wrote:

A new version of I-D, draft-iannone-pidloc-privacy-00.txt
has been successfully submitted by Luigi Iannone and posted to the
IETF repository.

Name:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0draft-iannone-pidloc-privacy<= br> Revision:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A000
Title:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Privacy issues in Identifier/Locat= or Separation Systems
Document date:=C2=A0 2020-01-23
Group:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Individual Submission
Pages:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 11
URL:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iannone-pidloc= -privacy-00.txt
Status:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iannone-pidloc-privacy/
Htmlized:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0https= ://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iannone-pidloc-privacy-00
Htmlized:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-iannone-pidloc-privacy

Abstract:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0There exist several protocols and proposals that leverage on t= he
=C2=A0 =C2=A0Identifier/Locator split paradigm, having some form of control= plane
=C2=A0 =C2=A0by which participating nodes can share their current Identifie= r-to-
=C2=A0 =C2=A0Location information with their peers.=C2=A0 This document exp= lores some
=C2=A0 =C2=A0of the privacy considerations for such a type of system.




Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submissio= n
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

The IETF Secretariat

--00000000000043f813059ce4973d-- From nobody Tue Jan 28 13:12:25 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pidloc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pidloc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75AE11200CD for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2020 13:12:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.748 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.748 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 bTbmTLEZJ2D8 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2020 13:12:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-yw1-xc33.google.com (mail-yw1-xc33.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::c33]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D10BD1200C3 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2020 13:12:21 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-yw1-xc33.google.com with SMTP id b81so5111644ywe.9 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2020 13:12:21 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:reply-to:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=Np3u1le8hO2u2faWPnOulEKZLxLcIXo7FRTUF0CkAMk=; b=FXgx3Xo1HaFeEg5ab4U9Uf5KOiSkomyD96C7874ADizXQVPPCv1DUjEIqgKot+zseK 9q20X5I+q69IL+JH5XEgrOW4l5n3kCvAVkfdxjkzwd/UqzjzMciZ3s5W3cK277qXGsy9 KnZebcCdQEzrUXSuHu0FKKnybM9HwstN5pOpVy7doqxcqnAlfNpSaf0Df5GqA6OvyXa5 cVRq4nzgr10evq5hIZ/TTP+++rK2ko6XYXB+pPvnhBwXOkI4rtZ2WvmioJj5tbHKm+c+ uRrSHJ5nGAi+RHTX77o3WFeg5UCS2xKG/d8U4MtOE0djeZDzEaSRR9CMmasUGBkDCCpU Seug== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:reply-to :from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Np3u1le8hO2u2faWPnOulEKZLxLcIXo7FRTUF0CkAMk=; b=aa/tMYAAR9AZNATJRHqxnCsl8XOKAnOXnYBPgvulPSQTpHxcUL463tJBfgMWzLOUIS tcDztGF1XBrIBn3jWt6wV3ZvdAHRnqa9Az4kReMfwLXsEVZEwn57iZPHRlNSRsC1Y7Cn ZyiUXI9MUqBYlQBkym+hEHlPUFCuTbceuG2fhzN0VoAK2sXV+Rm9WzLq5kwxE8+CtPAz k5amF/2lO48NdD7zVKxxQaVzOcVfBqSNa8IgnCrumFDMZ9eVEEb1IPHhya99a6EFwqHx /NwEUgya5obIjGviQvt6dIqDnV2IY/QeJDcxe6axMgjx3xhSjxjZy64UmB27PazHbTYn OoAQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV3RTxgYiqoMTpZAzXXEqq+jrk2N24iISOnNHvn6vWn31U2v8nV ig6HONtABfICy1ekvG+1nO6QjqbI9/QrM2tDxbr83FkT X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyLlFwFhCb1NSqVtmlvGH94ePYXbylhr/Gq2DUr1jIuphGFQV6nV8TjeEXKwEzYVHFbu/K5MifjEj3822Vx+Gw= X-Received: by 2002:a81:99c7:: with SMTP id q190mr18490657ywg.480.1580245940948; Tue, 28 Jan 2020 13:12:20 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <157985487134.22081.1953062526439829970.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: Reply-To: sarikaya@ieee.org From: Behcet Sarikaya Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2020 15:12:10 -0600 Message-ID: To: "Joel M. Halpern" , pidloc@ietf.org Cc: "" , Luigi Iannone Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f7d251059d39adf6" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Pidloc] New Version Notification for draft-iannone-pidloc-privacy-00.txt X-BeenThere: pidloc@ietf.org 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, 28 Jan 2020 21:12:23 -0000 --000000000000f7d251059d39adf6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Thanks Joel for your comments. I am cc'ing it to the list. We will work on it and hopefully come back with our replies/revised draft. Regards, Behcet On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 2:23 PM Joel M. Halpern wrote: > Reading through the draft, some observations occurred to me. I hope > they are helpful to you. > > Section 3.2.1 reads very strangely. it seems to mix the need to secure > access to IoT entities with the need to maintain privacy of something > (the ID? the Locator?) of those devices. When it says "there are very > strong reasons..." I am left going "there are?" as this seems unmotivated. > > (I will admit at this point that I wonder if section 3 is actually > useful. It is not describing use ases for I/L separation. It seems to > be describing some sets of clients who might use I/L separation systems. > On the one hand, that set ought to be everything, in a "desired" > state. In another sense, most of the use cases that LISP is used for > are not there. ) > > The second sentence of 3.2.2 is not a sentence. It appears to be a > subject phrase. And then I am left confused as to what challenge it is > that needs to be solved for the use of end-to-end I/L separation in 5G. > Other than industry desire to do so. > > Section 5.1 on Location privacy should probably have two caveats. It > should note that this assumes that identifiers are stable rather than > mutating. Second, it should probably repeat the note that there are > other means of correlation which are very important for this use case. > (Google and Facebook can correlate your location because you log in to > them, and they get your locator. No matter what you do with identifiers > at the network layer.) We need to be realistic about what we are trying > to improve. > > I think sections 6 and 7 need to recognize the distinction between > entities who need to be reached by arbitrary peers (servers) and > entities that choose who they talk to (clients, UE, ...) It may also > want to talk about the concommitant need to share ones locator / > identifier with communication peers. > > Yours, > Joel > > > On 1/28/2020 12:36 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: > > Hi Joel, > > > > We published this draft last week, being a recognized expert in the > > area, I would like to ask your comments please. > > It seems like you are not on pidloc mailing list so you may not have > > received this email below however you may send your comments to the list > > we will approve your post. > > > > Regards, > > Behcet & Dirk > > > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > > From: > > > Date: Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 2:34 AM > > Subject: New Version Notification for draft-iannone-pidloc-privacy-00.txt > > To: Luigi Iannone >, Behcet > > Sarikaya >, Erik Nordmark > > >, Dirk von Hugo > > > > > > > > > > > A new version of I-D, draft-iannone-pidloc-privacy-00.txt > > has been successfully submitted by Luigi Iannone and posted to the > > IETF repository. > > > > Name: draft-iannone-pidloc-privacy > > Revision: 00 > > Title: Privacy issues in Identifier/Locator Separation Systems > > Document date: 2020-01-23 > > Group: Individual Submission > > Pages: 11 > > URL: > > https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iannone-pidloc-privacy-00.txt > > Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iannone-pidloc-privacy/ > > Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iannone-pidloc-privacy-00 > > Htmlized: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-iannone-pidloc-privacy > > > > > > Abstract: > > There exist several protocols and proposals that leverage on the > > Identifier/Locator split paradigm, having some form of control plane > > by which participating nodes can share their current Identifier-to- > > Location information with their peers. This document explores some > > of the privacy considerations for such a type of system. > > > > > > > > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of > submission > > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org > > . > > > > The IETF Secretariat > > > --000000000000f7d251059d39adf6 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thanks Joel for your comments. I am cc= 9;ing it to the list.

We will work on it and hopefully c= ome back with our replies/revised draft.

Regards,<= /div>
Behcet

On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 2:23 PM Joel M. Halpern <<= a href=3D"mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com">jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:
Reading through the draft, some observations occurr= ed to me.=C2=A0 I hope
they are helpful to you.

Section 3.2.1 reads very strangely.=C2=A0 it seems to mix the need to secur= e
access to IoT entities with the need to maintain privacy of something
(the ID? the Locator?) of those devices.=C2=A0 When it says "there are= very
strong reasons..." I am left going "there are?" as this seem= s unmotivated.

(I will admit at this point that I wonder if section 3 is actually
useful.=C2=A0 It is not describing use ases for I/L separation.=C2=A0 It se= ems to
be describing some sets of clients who might use I/L separation systems. =C2=A0 On the one hand, that set ought to be everything, in a "desired= "
state.=C2=A0 In another sense, most of the use cases that LISP is used for =
are not there. )

The second sentence of 3.2.2 is not a sentence.=C2=A0 It appears to be a subject phrase.=C2=A0 And then I am left confused as to what challenge it i= s
that needs to be solved for the use of end-to-end I/L separation in 5G. Other than industry desire to do so.

Section 5.1 on Location privacy should probably have two caveats.=C2=A0 It =
should note that this assumes that identifiers are stable rather than
mutating.=C2=A0 Second, it should probably repeat the note that there are <= br> other means of correlation which are very important for this use case.
(Google and Facebook can correlate your location because you log in to
them, and they get your locator.=C2=A0 No matter what you do with identifie= rs
at the network layer.)=C2=A0 We need to be realistic about what we are tryi= ng
to improve.

I think sections 6 and 7 need to recognize the distinction between
entities who need to be reached by arbitrary peers (servers) and
entities that choose who they talk to (clients, UE, ...)=C2=A0 It may also =
want to talk about the concommitant need to share ones locator /
identifier with communication peers.

Yours,
Joel


On 1/28/2020 12:36 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
> Hi Joel,
>
> We published this draft last week, being a recognized expert in the > area, I would like to ask =C2=A0your comments please.
> It seems like you are not on pidloc mailing list so you may not have <= br> > received this email below however you may send your comments to the li= st
> we will approve your post.
>
> Regards,
> Behcet & Dirk
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: <internet-drafts@ietf.org <mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org>>
> Date: Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 2:34 AM
> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-iannone-pidloc-privacy-00.= txt
> To: Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net <mailto:ggx@gigix.net>>, Behcet
> Sarikaya <sa= rikaya@ieee.org <mailto:sarikaya@ieee.org>>, Erik Nordmark
> <nordmark@s= onic.net <mailto:nordmark@sonic.net>>, Dirk von Hugo
> <dirk= .von-hugo@telekom.de <mailto:dirk.von-hugo@telekom.de>>
>
>
>
> A new version of I-D, draft-iannone-pidloc-privacy-00.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Luigi Iannone and posted to the
> IETF repository.
>
> Name:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0draft-iannone-pidloc-pri= vacy
> Revision:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A000
> Title:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Privacy issues in Identifier/= Locator Separation Systems
> Document date:=C2=A0 2020-01-23
> Group:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Individual Submission
> Pages:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 11
> URL:
> https://www.ietf.org/in= ternet-drafts/draft-iannone-pidloc-privacy-00.txt
> Status: https://datatracker.ietf.= org/doc/draft-iannone-pidloc-privacy/
> Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/htm= l/draft-iannone-pidloc-privacy-00
> Htmlized: https://datatracker= .ietf.org/doc/html/draft-iannone-pidloc-privacy
>
>
> Abstract:
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0There exist several protocols and proposals that le= verage on the
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Identifier/Locator split paradigm, having some form= of control plane
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0by which participating nodes can share their curren= t Identifier-to-
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Location information with their peers.=C2=A0 This d= ocument explores some
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0of the privacy considerations for such a type of sy= stem.
>
>
>
>
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of subm= ission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org > <http://tools.ietf.org>.
>
> The IETF Secretariat
>
--000000000000f7d251059d39adf6--