Hi all,
Just sending this here since I suggested they include a privacy
considerations section and appear to have accepted that.
In general ICN has a privacy issue, so interested if anyone has a
general take or links to that effect. Even a joint draft between ICNRG
and PEARG might be a very useful contribution as caching becomes ubiquitous,
-Mallory
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: [irsg] IRSG review request draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g-07
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2020 11:20:23 -0400
From: Mallory Knodel <[email protected]>
To: Colin Perkins <[email protected]>
CC: [email protected], [email protected]
Hi everyone,
On behalf of the IRSG I reviewed this draft. I have two main points and
a general observation that some sections will require extensive copy
editing by the RFC Editor, which would be nice to avoid by the authors
providing that if another version is imminent anyway. My two main points
relate to privacy and references.
Generally it seems that privacy trade offs from IP to ICN, even in
IPoICN, aren't made explicit and I wonder as well if the mere existence
of the transport convergence layer, even when useless for IP to IP,
isn't of concern. As noted in RFC 7945, ICN as an architecture trades
privacy for efficiency, where "The activity of users is significantly
more exposed to the scrutiny of cache owners..." In the conclusion
lawful intercept is mentioned, which I imagine would be expedited by the
TCL even for IP to IP. Wondering if I could convince you to introduce a
privacy considerations section that states plainly the trade off and the
risks of this architecture, even for native IP.
On references, there are a few points:
* point-h2020.eu appears to no longer be a functional domain.
* I'm unable to dig into IPoICN because the IEEE paper referenced is
inaccessible without a subscription-- I couldn't even buy it, though I
tried. It's possible another link, or another publication, even if
paywalled might be better.
* HICN reference, the draft is now in version -04
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-muscariello-intarea-hicn/
* Similarly ICN5G is now in -04
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ravi-icnrg-5gc-icn/
* And ICNLOWPAN is now -08
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-icnrg-icnlowpan/
* The NGMN citation link is incorrect or broken, but it appears there
is a PDF of this publication online, the integrity of which I can't verify.
-Mallory
On 6/23/20 11:11 AM, Colin Perkins wrote:
IRSG members,
The ICNRG Research Group has requested that
draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g-07
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g/> be
considered for publication as an IRTF RFC. To progress this draft, we
now need *at least one* IRSG member to volunteer to provide a detailed
review of the draft, as follows:
The purpose of the IRSG review is to ensure consistent editorial and
technical quality for IRTF publications. IRSG review is not a deep
technical review. (This should take place within the RG.) At least
one IRSG member other than the chair of the RG bringing the work
forth must review the document and the RG’s editorial process.
IRSG reviewers should look for clear, cogent, and consistent writing.
An important aspect of the review is to gain a critical reading from
reviewers who are not subject matter experts and, in the process,
assure the document will be accessible to those beyond the authoring
research group. Also, reviewers should assess whether sufficient
editorial and technical review has been conducted and the
requirements for publication described in RFC 5743 have been
met. Finally, reviewers should check that appropriate citations to
related research literature have been made.
Reviews should be written to be public. Review comments should be
sent to the IRSG and RG mailing lists and entered into the tracker.
All IRSG review comments must be addressed. However, the RG need not
accept every comment. It is the responsibility of the shepherd to
understand the comments and ensure that the RG considers them
including adequate dialog between the reviewer and the author and/or
RG. Reviews and their resolution should be entered into the tracker
by the document shepherd.
The IRSG review often results in the document being revised. Once the
reviewer(s), authors, and shepherd have converged on review comments,
the shepherd starts the IRSG Poll on whether the document should be
published.
Please respond to this message if you’re able to perform such a
review, and indicate the approximate time-frame by which you’ll be
able to complete it. The document shepherd write-up is available at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g/shepherdwriteup/
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g/shepherdwriteup/>
Thanks!
Colin
--
Mallory Knodel
CTO, Center for Democracy and Technology
gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780
_______________________________________________
ietf-privacy mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-privacy
