Hi Rich and Enrico, I also like the categorization. Generally I agree with most of what you said here. Actually in section 3.1 "ISP privacy" and secion 3.2 "P2P privacy" in draft-wang-alto-privacy-load-analysis, we have covered (1) and (2). Tha's also why we suggested CPID option. Since each peer has a CPID and the cost can be calculated with CPIDs directly. ISPs don't have to give the full map to P2P applications while P2P applications will not have their behaviors monitored by ISPs. You don't have to worry about your CPID information being theft by other peers, it is useless to them. The benefits of CPID option include not only the obscuration of ISP information, but also simple and light-weight (each peer has to maintain much smaller information).
I'm concern about the logic between (3a), (3b) and (3c). Like Enrico said, ALTO servers SHOULD NOT provide anyone with information they don't want to get redistributed. Then I don't see any necessary to encrypt the ALTO information. That means, we don't need to have mechanisms to solve (3a) and (3b). But we still need to have signature or something to prevent the information being modified and to make sure it is from the right ALTO server. Xie Xie, Haibin > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Enrico Marocco > Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2009 11:44 PM > To: Richard Alimi > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [alto] New > draftnotification:draft-wang-alto-privacy-load-analysis-00 > > Richard Alimi wrote: > > On Thursday 17 December 2009 10:20:17 am Enrico Marocco wrote: > >> Richard, I like your categorization, I think it would be useful > >> having it written somewhere (in the requirements doc?) as > a reference > >> for future discussions. > >> > >> On the substance of the matter, I agree that we should introduce > >> mechanisms in the protocol to address (1), (2), (3a) and (3b), but > >> regarding (3c) don't go any further than stating very clearly that > >> ALTO servers SHOULD NOT provide anyone with information they don't > >> want to get redistributed. > > > > Agreed, but it might make senses to instead state something > like "The > > protocol SHOULD NOT be responsible for preventing unauthorized > > redistribution of ALTO information by ALTO Clients." > > Yeah, I don't actually care about the wording right now, as > long as it makes clear that we are not going to waste time on > any kind of DRM-like technology for protecting information > distributed by ALTO servers. > > -- > Ciao, > Enrico > _______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
