[P2PSIP] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-p2psip-sip-18: (with COMMENT)

Discussion:

Mirja Kuehlewind

2016-04-15 20:56:34 UTC

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-p2psip-sip-18: No Objection

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-p2psip-sip/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The privacy issues text in the security consideration section sounds not
very convincing:

8.2.4. Privacy Issues

All RELOAD SIP registration data is visible to all nodes in the
overlay. Methods of providing location and identity privacy are
still being studied. Location privacy can be gained from using
anonymous GRUUs.

Can you give more details or a reference regarding the methods that are
still under study?

Thomas C. Schmidt

2016-04-17 17:11:27 UTC

Permalink

Hi Mirja,

o.k., the text is a bit sloppy. What it probably should say is that
anonymity measures are not considered here.

A proposed re-write could be:

8.2.4. Privacy Issues

All RELOAD SIP registration data is visible to all nodes in the
overlay. Location privacy can be gained from using
anonymous GRUUs. Methods of providing anonymity or deploying
pseudonyms exist, but are beyond the scope of this document.

Would you agree on that?

Thomas

Post by Mirja Kuehlewind
Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-p2psip-sip-18: No Objection
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.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-p2psip-sip/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The privacy issues text in the security consideration section sounds not
8.2.4. Privacy Issues
All RELOAD SIP registration data is visible to all nodes in the
overlay. Methods of providing location and identity privacy are
still being studied. Location privacy can be gained from using
anonymous GRUUs.
Can you give more details or a reference regarding the methods that are
still under study?

--
Prof. Dr. Thomas C. Schmidt
° Hamburg University of Applied Sciences Berliner Tor 7 °
° Dept. Informatik, Internet Technologies Group 20099 Hamburg, Germany °
° http://www.haw-hamburg.de/inet Fon: +49-40-42875-8452 °
° http://www.informatik.haw-hamburg.de/~schmidt Fax: +49-40-42875-8409 °

Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)

2016-04-20 09:52:03 UTC

Permalink

Hi Thomas,

that’s slightly better. However, I would rather like to see a reference to a solution or a discuss of potential solution. If there is no solution, this should be stated clearly (as a warning).

Mirja

Post by Thomas C. Schmidt
Hi Mirja,
o.k., the text is a bit sloppy. What it probably should say is that anonymity measures are not considered here.
8.2.4. Privacy Issues
All RELOAD SIP registration data is visible to all nodes in the
overlay. Location privacy can be gained from using
anonymous GRUUs. Methods of providing anonymity or deploying
pseudonyms exist, but are beyond the scope of this document.
Would you agree on that?
Thomas

Thomas C. Schmidt

2016-04-20 10:09:28 UTC

Permalink

Hi Mirja,

actually, I'm a bit confused about this discussion. There is plenty of
work out in the wild about P2P anonymity and pseudonym services ... TOR
being one prominent example. However, if I'm not mistaken, no IETF
standard exists in this area so that we cannot pointer to a standard
solution.

A discussion of the general state of the art in this field feels well
beyond the scope of the document: This security subsection shall only
make people aware of this privacy aspect. It is not meant to server as a
general purpose guidance on privacy in P2P networks. ;)

Cheers,
Thomas

Post by Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)
Hi Thomas,
that’s slightly better. However, I would rather like to see a reference to a solution or a discuss of potential solution. If there is no solution, this should be stated clearly (as a warning).
Mirja

Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)

2016-04-22 11:52:00 UTC

Permalink

Hi Thomas,

yes, you are right, no need to discuss general mechanism that apply to this doc as well as other similar mechanisms. Sorry also for actually be unclear about my concerns. My actual point is that I of course need to transfer private data (email address) but I did not see anything about encryption of this communication in the doc. (This is not about anonymity but I’ve expended to find something about encryption in the privacy section.) After a second look now, I still didn’t find anything... did I miss it?

Also, this is nit-picking, but in general saying "Methods of providing anonymity or deploying pseudonyms exist, but are beyond the scope of this document.“ seems not super helpful because it does not give any hint where someone, who’d like to apply these kind of methods, would find any further information. But I agree talking about the methods itself is out of scope.

Mirja

Post by Thomas C. Schmidt
Hi Mirja,
actually, I'm a bit confused about this discussion. There is plenty of work out in the wild about P2P anonymity and pseudonym services ... TOR being one prominent example. However, if I'm not mistaken, no IETF standard exists in this area so that we cannot pointer to a standard solution.
A discussion of the general state of the art in this field feels well beyond the scope of the document: This security subsection shall only make people aware of this privacy aspect. It is not meant to server as a general purpose guidance on privacy in P2P networks. ;)
Cheers,
Thomas