Subject: Re: [Iotsi] Sticky Policy: Attaching privacy policies to data

From: "Smith, Ned" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 17:52:23 +0000

Thanks Hannes!

RFC4119 could be characterized as an information model and data model
expression of a set of context attributes (location, presence) that when
extant represent possible privacy sensitive attributes for which some form
of privacy preservation strategy may be needed. The paper suggests a few
possible strategies such as retention limitations / data expiry and
retransmission rules.

It was noted at the F2F that 'context' was an aspect of information
modeling that represented a form of meta-data that has value (hence
shouldn't be ignored?). Given IM practice will be inclusive of context
attributes (which normally might include location, presence etc...), the
IM can inform the trust model seeking to realize privacy goals.

It could be observed that at least part of the objectives of RFC4119 could
be realized, namely that contextual metadata (location, presence) may be
available through a more comprehensive IM - one that is inclusive of
context. That suggests to me at least, that an existing IM and DM may
satisfy some of the RFC4119 objectives though possibly not being RFC4119
compliant.

It would be preferable, IMO, if the IM that describes the "system" informs
the Trust Model (security / privacy) rather than having the Trust Model
define the IM and DM that then must be retrofitted into the system IM/DM.
I'm not suggesting there won't be a need for security / privacy goals of
an IM to inform the system IM, but it should do so using the languages of
the system IM and DM.

Given a comprehensive system IM and DM, this may be sufficient toward
properly informing privacy models regarding privacy context. If there are
gaps, they likely are small. For example, the system IM/DM that defines an
identifier, might leave undefined intended mutability properties.
Normally, we'd expect the DM would specify the identifier's possible
values, but it might not specify its uniqueness properties. Uniqueness may
be understood within some context, such as a life expectancy for reuse or
a namespace authority that can manage / check for namespace collision.

A 32-bit identifier can uniquely identify 4B things at a given time. The
4B+1 item could collide with an existing identifier. If the rollover rate
is specified, then a privacy model could use that information to manage
privacy risk because there is a window in which the transaction associated
with the identifier will be extant. It may be appropriate for IOTSI to
consider defining rollover rate parameters as a possible 'range' attribute
that is associated with identifiers.

This is more the approach I would advocate vs. an RFC4119 approach.

-Ned

Ned Smith
Principal IoT Security Architect
Intel SSG-OTC
[email-masked]
+1.503.712.3695

On 3/21/16, 1:58 AM, "Iotsi on behalf of Hannes Tschofenig"
<[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:

>Hi all,
>
>During the security discussion the idea of attaching privacy policies to
>data was mentioned and I noted that there has been work in the IETF on
>that topic.
>
>Here are the relevant pointers: RFC 4119 (see
>https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4119.txt) specified a way to convey
>usage-rules along with location data. These usage-rules contain four
>pieces of information:
>- retransmission-allowed
>- retention-expires
>- ruleset-reference
>- note-well
>
>The ruleset-reference contains richer information about what a recipient
>of location information is allowed to do with that information. RFC 4745
>(see http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4745) defines the format of those
>policies and they have been extended for use with application specific
>domains, such as presence information and geolocation information. The
>former can be found in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5025 and the latter
>in http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6772
>
>Ciao
>Hannes
>
>IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are
>confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
>recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the
>contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy
>the information in any medium. Thank you.
>
>_______________________________________________
>Iotsi mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/iotsi

---

From: "Subramaniam, Ravi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 01:54:21 +0000

Hi,

+1 with Ned

It would be beneficial to view security (incl Trust) as a context in which IMs and DMs are interpreted/actioned. In that case, using system IM/DM to inform context would be preferred.

Ravi

-----Original Message-----
From: Iotsi [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Smith, Ned
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2016 10:52 AM
To: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Iotsi] Sticky Policy: Attaching privacy policies to data

Thanks Hannes!

RFC4119 could be characterized as an information model and data model expression of a set of context attributes (location, presence) that when extant represent possible privacy sensitive attributes for which some form of privacy preservation strategy may be needed. The paper suggests a few possible strategies such as retention limitations / data expiry and retransmission rules.

It was noted at the F2F that 'context' was an aspect of information modeling that represented a form of meta-data that has value (hence shouldn't be ignored?). Given IM practice will be inclusive of context attributes (which normally might include location, presence etc...), the IM can inform the trust model seeking to realize privacy goals.

It could be observed that at least part of the objectives of RFC4119 could be realized, namely that contextual metadata (location, presence) may be available through a more comprehensive IM - one that is inclusive of context. That suggests to me at least, that an existing IM and DM may satisfy some of the RFC4119 objectives though possibly not being RFC4119 compliant.

It would be preferable, IMO, if the IM that describes the "system" informs the Trust Model (security / privacy) rather than having the Trust Model define the IM and DM that then must be retrofitted into the system IM/DM.
I'm not suggesting there won't be a need for security / privacy goals of an IM to inform the system IM, but it should do so using the languages of the system IM and DM.

Given a comprehensive system IM and DM, this may be sufficient toward properly informing privacy models regarding privacy context. If there are gaps, they likely are small. For example, the system IM/DM that defines an identifier, might leave undefined intended mutability properties.
Normally, we'd expect the DM would specify the identifier's possible values, but it might not specify its uniqueness properties. Uniqueness may be understood within some context, such as a life expectancy for reuse or a namespace authority that can manage / check for namespace collision.

A 32-bit identifier can uniquely identify 4B things at a given time. The
4B+1 item could collide with an existing identifier. If the rollover 
4B+rate
is specified, then a privacy model could use that information to manage privacy risk because there is a window in which the transaction associated with the identifier will be extant. It may be appropriate for IOTSI to consider defining rollover rate parameters as a possible 'range' attribute that is associated with identifiers.

-Ned

Ned Smith

On 3/21/16, 1:58 AM, "Iotsi on behalf of Hannes Tschofenig"
<[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:

>Hi all,
>
>During the security discussion the idea of attaching privacy policies 
>to data was mentioned and I noted that there has been work in the IETF 
>on that topic.
>
>The ruleset-reference contains richer information about what a 
>recipient of location information is allowed to do with that 
>information. RFC 4745 (see http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4745) defines 
>the format of those policies and they have been extended for use with 
>application specific domains, such as presence information and 
>geolocation information. The former can be found in 
>https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5025 and the latter in 
>http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6772
>
>Ciao
>Hannes
>

---

From: Michel Kohanim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 02:39:27 +0000

Although I missed the F2F, I am very concerned with the concept of IDs especially with respect to privacy. The reason is that any implementor must have a priori knowledge of these IDs (not to mention collision).

I propose a very simple meta X (don't know what to call it) tied to each interaction between users of objects and its properties and services (inherited from object):
Object: create, read, query, mutate, destroy, move, subscribe, etc
Property: read, query, mutate, subscribe, etc.
Service: invoke, callback, start, stop, terminate, etc.

Objects, services, and properties have meaningful representations themselves based on concepts such as the one I proposed, HATEOS, IOTDB, or similar.

With kind regards,
**********************************************
Michel Kohanim
CEO

(p) 818.631.0333<tel:818.631.0333>
(f)  818.436.0702<tel:818.436.0702>
http://www.universal-devices.com<http://www.universal-devices.com/>
**********************************************

On March 21, 2016 6:54:28 PM "Subramaniam, Ravi" <[email-masked]> wrote:

Hi,

+1 with Ned

Ravi

-----Original Message-----
From: Iotsi [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Smith, Ned
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2016 10:52 AM
To: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Iotsi] Sticky Policy: Attaching privacy policies to data

Thanks Hannes!

-Ned

Ned Smith

Hi all,

Ciao
Hannes