I second Padma on this!
I suggest we all work more constructively in refining our charter here,
and be more focused on the tasks listed in the charter. It's probably
too early to fight on the exact meaning of any particular word (e.g.
'identity'). Features like privacy protection and discoverability can
also be left for discussion when we work on the details of the
framework, instead of being used to kill the whole proposal.
By the way, statements like "someone else failed before" should never be
a reason to stop working on something of such importance.
Sam
On 10/11/17 1:32 PM, Padma Pillay-Esnault wrote:
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 9:15 AM, Christian Huitema
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 10/11/2017 7:56 AM, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
and 'identity' is a red flag.
Whow there! You were part of the Namespace Research Group? I
think? I was and we we worked a lot on this and came to the
conclusion that there could be no conclusion. Not even a rough
concensus, it seemed.
I have been using 'identity' to apply to things for 20 years.
Pretty much ever since I started working with things. Anyone
that holds the position that 'identity' means we are talking only
about people are allowing their thinking to be clouded.
I am concerned that the current proponents of the IDEAS work are
mainly resisting the feedback, treating it as some roadblock put
in the path of their work by misguided privacy purists, and
attempting to remove the roadblocks by adding some weasel words to
the charter. I would feel much more confident if these proponents
acknowledged the tension between privacy and stable identifiers of
any sort, if that tension was clearly noted in the charter, and if
privacy goals were clearly stated.
As one of the proponents, I feel I need to speak up because blanket
statements are just not helping.
Speaking on behalf of my fellow proponents, we have always welcomed
constructive feedback from people who want/can contribute and make the
technology better. We have been willing to clarify the charter
(clarification does not mean weaseling).
If it is helpful to move forward, I am willing to volunteer for this
work and discuss with anyone to ensure constructive feedback and
comments are addressed.
Specifically, I think there is a contradiction between some of
documents. For example, draft-padma-ideas-problem-statement-01
states that:
o A single entity may have multiple IDs, and IDs of the same entity
may have different life spans that are different from the lifespan
of the entity. Furthermore, it is understood that IDs may have
different lifecycles, which may be permanent or ephemeral by
choice or design.
o Ephemeral (temporary) IDs may be used as a short-lived pseudonym
for a permanent ID to protect the privacy of the related entity.
But then, draft-ccm-ideas-identity-use-cases-01 states that:
a. Unique and Permanent Identity representing the entity enables
authentication (AUTH) with the mapping and Identity services
infrastructure. While it is possible to do AUTH on Identifiers
those are not permanently associated to the entity. Moreover,
AUTH operation is a relatively an expensive and inefficient
procedure (compared to LOC resolution for example) and can cause
excessive startup delays for lot of applications.
As said earlier this draft was not updated by the authors and a new
version was posted yesterday.
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ideas/current/msg00520.html
The tension is obvious. On one hand, the ephemeral identifiers
envisaged in the problem statement would pretty much align the
privacy properties of the ID to those of IPv6 privacy addresses,
and that's good. On the other hand, the requirement to perform
authentication on identities completely negates that property.
I would be fine if the support for "Unique and Permanent Identity"
was explicitly excluded from the charter.
AFAIK, none of the proponents resisted that.
There is obviously a need to support some form of access control
to a mapping database,
Agreed.
but you do not need a reference to a permanent identity for that
-- systems similar to CGA would work just fine.
The identity of the device is just adding a lever of identifier which
effectively allows authentication to modify the identifiers used by
that device but also what the users of these identifiers can look up.
If we had used "user of identifier" it would have been misconstrued
for humans. So damn if you do and damn if you don't ...
We are open for discussions anytime.
Padma
--
Christian Huitema
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp>
_______________________________________________
Ideas mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ideas
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
