Subject: [Lsr] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-lls-interface-id-08: (with COMMENT)

From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 05:22:20 -0700

Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ospf-lls-interface-id-08: 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-ospf-lls-interface-id/

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

Sending a new type of information to the peer usually involves a privacy
considerations analysis.  I don't expect there to be anything worrisome
here, but some text in the document indicating that the analysis has been
done would be reassuring.

---

From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 13:51:42 +0000

Hi Ben, 

On 10/25/18, 8:22 AM, "Benjamin Kaduk" <[email-masked]> wrote:

    

Can you suggest some text? I was thinking:

   Since the scope of the interface ID is limited to the advertising OSPF router 
   uniquely identifying links, there are no privacy concerns associated with its
   advertisement.

Thanks,
Acee

---

From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 09:08:24 -0500

Hi Acee,

>     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-lls-interface-id/

I'm not sure that I could -- I don't have confidence that I understand the
system well enough to frame something in a complete and correct way.

>    uniquely identifying links, there are no privacy concerns associated with its

I wonder if there is a step missing to link these together -- that the
links are generally fixed and immobile, or that the scope of distribution
is limited to a set of trusted peers, perhaps?

Sorry I can't be more helpful...

-Benjamin

---

From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 14:28:12 +0000

Hi Ben,

On 10/30/18, 10:08 AM, "Benjamin Kaduk" <[email-masked]> wrote:

    Hi Acee,

    

The point I'm making is that since the interface ID is only unique for the network device, it doesn't provide any clue as to the identity of the device owner or traffic transiting the device. Hence, there are no privacy considerations associated with extension. It is also true that routing peers are trusted but that is a moot point for this extension In the context of privacy. 

Thanks,
Acee 

    -Benjamin

---

From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 20:09:19 -0500

> The point I'm making is that since the interface ID is only unique for the network device, it doesn't provide any clue as to the identity of the device owner or traffic transiting the device. Hence…

Ah, I see; thanks.  How does "The interface ID is locally assigned by the
advertising OSPF router as a uniquifier and need not be unique in any
broader context; it is not expected to contain any information about the
device owner or traffic transiting the device, so there are no privacy
concerns associated with its advertisement." sound?

-Benjamin

---

From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 01:21:14 +0000

Hi Ben, 

On 10/30/18, 9:09 PM, "Benjamin Kaduk" <[email-masked]> wrote:

Sure - that is clearer. In fact, I realized that it wasn't obvious after explaining it in my last Email. I'd avoid "uniquifier" since it isn't in the dictionary yielding: 

    The interface ID is assigned by the advertising OSPF router as a locally
    unique identifier and need not be unique in any broader context; it is 
    not expected to contain any information about the device owner or
    traffic transiting the device, so there are no privacy oncerns 
    associated with its advertisement.

Thanks,
Acee
    
    -Benjamin

---

From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 20:26:22 -0500

On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 01:21:14AM +0000, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
>     traffic transiting the device, so there are no privacy concerns 

Ship it! :)

Thanks,

Benjamin

---

From: Peter Psenak <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 08:36:33 +0100

Hi Ben, Acee,

>>      associated with its advertisement.

updated the draft, will submit as soon as the submission reopens.

thanks,
Peter

> .