From nobody Wed Nov 2 01:30:58 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FA5E129453; Wed, 2 Nov 2016 01:30:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.086 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.086 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id K0fGpF4-l92k; Wed, 2 Nov 2016 01:30:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cmccmta1.chinamobile.com (cmccmta1.chinamobile.com [221.176.66.79]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF4C2127ABE; Wed, 2 Nov 2016 01:30:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from spf.mail.chinamobile.com (unknown[172.16.121.19]) by rmmx-syy-dmz-app04-12004 (RichMail) with SMTP id 2ee45819a43697b-5b8ac; Wed, 02 Nov 2016 16:30:46 +0800 (CST) X-RM-TRANSID: 2ee45819a43697b-5b8ac X-RM-SPAM-FLAG: 00000000 Received: from cmcc-PC (unknown[221.130.253.135]) by rmsmtp-syy-appsvr10-12010 (RichMail) with SMTP id 2eea5819a433a5a-4389c; Wed, 02 Nov 2016 16:30:44 +0800 (CST) X-RM-TRANSID: 2eea5819a433a5a-4389c Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 16:32:27 +0800 From: "lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com" To: ipfix >, ie-doctors , Aitken , Claise , gurong , (Jimmy) X-Priority: 3 X-Has-Attach: no X-Mailer: Foxmail 7, 2, 7, 164[cn] Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <2016110216322674994111@chinamobile.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart662264702784_=----" Archived-At: Subject: [IPFIX] Fw: New Version Notification for draft-li-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-01.txt X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2016 08:30:57 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_001_NextPart662264702784_=---- Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 SGVsbG8sDQoNCkEgbmV3IHZlcnNpb24gb2YgIGRyYWZ0LWxpLW9wc2F3Zy1pcGZpeC1iZ3AtY29t bXVuaXR5IGhhcyBiZWVuIHN1Ym1pdHRlZCBmb3IgdGhlIGNvbWluZyBtZWV0aW5nLiBZb3VyIGNv bW1lbnRzIGFyZSB3ZWxjb21lZC4NCg0KVGhpcyBkcmFmdCBpbnRyb2R1Y2VzIHRocmVlIElFcyB0 byBleHBvcnQgZmxvdyByZWxhdGVkIEJHUCBjb21tdW5pdHkgaW5mb3JtYXRpb24gaW4gSVBGSVgu IFRoZSB0eXBlIG9mIGJhc2ljTGlzdCBkZWZpbmVkIGluIFJGQzYzMTMgaXMgdXNlZC4gSW4gdGhp cyB2ZXJzaW9uLCBJRSBmb3IgQkdQIGNvbW11bml0eSBpcyBhZGRlZCBhbmQgYW4gZXhhbXBlIGlu IGdpdmVuIGluIHRoZSBhcHBlbmRpeCB0byBzaG93IHRoZSBlbmNvZGluZyBmb3JtYXQgb2YgdGhl IGludHJvZHVjZWQgSUVzLg0KDQpCZXN0IFJlZ2FyZHMsDQoNCg0KDQpsaXpoZW5xaWFuZ0BjaGlu YW1vYmlsZS5jb20NCiANCkZyb206IGludGVybmV0LWRyYWZ0cw0KRGF0ZTogMjAxNi0xMC0yOCAx ODoxOA0KVG86IFpoZW5xaWFuZyBMaTsgSmllIERvbmc7IFJvbmcgR3UNClN1YmplY3Q6IE5ldyBW ZXJzaW9uIE5vdGlmaWNhdGlvbiBmb3IgZHJhZnQtbGktb3BzYXdnLWlwZml4LWJncC1jb21tdW5p dHktMDEudHh0DQogDQpBIG5ldyB2ZXJzaW9uIG9mIEktRCwgZHJhZnQtbGktb3BzYXdnLWlwZml4 LWJncC1jb21tdW5pdHktMDEudHh0DQpoYXMgYmVlbiBzdWNjZXNzZnVsbHkgc3VibWl0dGVkIGJ5 IFpoZW5xaWFuZyBMaSBhbmQgcG9zdGVkIHRvIHRoZQ0KSUVURiByZXBvc2l0b3J5Lg0KIA0KTmFt ZTogZHJhZnQtbGktb3BzYXdnLWlwZml4LWJncC1jb21tdW5pdHkNClJldmlzaW9uOiAwMQ0KVGl0 bGU6IEV4cG9ydCBCR1AgY29tbXVuaXR5IGluZm9ybWF0aW9uIGluIElQIEZsb3cgSW5mb3JtYXRp b24gRXhwb3J0IChJUEZJWCkNCkRvY3VtZW50IGRhdGU6IDIwMTYtMTAtMjgNCkdyb3VwOiBJbmRp dmlkdWFsIFN1Ym1pc3Npb24NClBhZ2VzOiA5DQpVUkw6ICAgICAgICAgICAgaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cu aWV0Zi5vcmcvaW50ZXJuZXQtZHJhZnRzL2RyYWZ0LWxpLW9wc2F3Zy1pcGZpeC1iZ3AtY29tbXVu aXR5LTAxLnR4dA0KU3RhdHVzOiAgICAgICAgIGh0dHBzOi8vZGF0YXRyYWNrZXIuaWV0Zi5vcmcv ZG9jL2RyYWZ0LWxpLW9wc2F3Zy1pcGZpeC1iZ3AtY29tbXVuaXR5Lw0KSHRtbGl6ZWQ6ICAgICAg IGh0dHBzOi8vdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaHRtbC9kcmFmdC1saS1vcHNhd2ctaXBmaXgtYmdwLWNv bW11bml0eS0wMQ0KRGlmZjogICAgICAgICAgIGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL3JmY2RpZmY/ dXJsMj1kcmFmdC1saS1vcHNhd2ctaXBmaXgtYmdwLWNvbW11bml0eS0wMQ0KIA0KQWJzdHJhY3Q6 DQogICBUaGlzIGRyYWZ0IHNwZWNpZmllcyBhbiBleHRlbnNpb24gdG8gdGhlIElQRklYIGluZm9y bWF0aW9uIG1vZGVsDQogICBkZWZpbmVkIGluIFtSRkM3MDEyXSB0byBleHBvcnQgdGhlIEJHUCBj b21tdW5pdHkgaW5mb3JtYXRpb24uICBUaHJlZQ0KICAgaW5mb3JtYXRpb24gZWxlbWVudHMsIGJn cENvbW11bml0eSwgYmdwU291cmNlQ29tbXVuaXR5TGlzdCBhbmQNCiAgIGJncERlc3RpbmF0aW9u Q29tbXVuaXR5TGlzdCwgYXJlIGludHJvZHVjZWQgaW4gdGhpcyBkb2N1bWVudCB0byBjYXJyeQ0K ICAgdGhlIGNvbW11bml0eSBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiBmb3IgdGhlIHNvdXJjZSBJUCBhbmQgZGVzdGlu YXRpb24gSVANCiAgIHJlc3BlY3RpdmVseS4NCiANCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAN CiANCiANClBsZWFzZSBub3RlIHRoYXQgaXQgbWF5IHRha2UgYSBjb3VwbGUgb2YgbWludXRlcyBm cm9tIHRoZSB0aW1lIG9mIHN1Ym1pc3Npb24NCnVudGlsIHRoZSBodG1saXplZCB2ZXJzaW9uIGFu ZCBkaWZmIGFyZSBhdmFpbGFibGUgYXQgdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcuDQogDQpUaGUgSUVURiBTZWNy ZXRhcmlhdA0KIA0KIA0K ------=_001_NextPart662264702784_=---- Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =0A
Hello,

<= /div>
A new version of  draft-li-opsawg-ipf= ix-bgp-community has been submitted for the coming meeting. Your comments = are welcomed.

This draft = introduces three IEs to export flow related BGP community information in I= PFIX. The type of basicList defined in RFC6313 is used. In this version, I= E for BGP community is added and an exampe in given in the appendix to sho= w the encoding format of the introduced IEs.
=0A

Best Regards,

=0A
lizhenqiang= @chinamobile.com
=0A
 
Date: 2016-10-28 = 18:18
Subj= ect: New Version Notification for draft-li-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-commu= nity-01.txt
 
=0A
A new version o= f I-D, draft-li-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-01.txt
=0A
has been su= ccessfully submitted by Zhenqiang Li and posted to the
=0A
IETF r= epository.
=0A
 
=0A
Name: draft-li-opsawg-ipfix-b= gp-community
=0A
Revision: 01
=0A
Title: Export BGP com= munity information in IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)
=0A
Docu= ment date: 2016-10-28
=0A
Group: Individual Submission
=0A<= div>Pages: 9
=0A
URL:       &= nbsp;    https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-li-opsa= wg-ipfix-bgp-community-01.txt
=0A
Status:    =      https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-opsawg-= ipfix-bgp-community/
=0A
Htmlized:     &= nbsp; https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-li-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-01=0A
Diff:         &nb= sp; https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-li-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-communit= y-01
=0A
 
=0A
Abstract:
=0A
   = This draft specifies an extension to the IPFIX information model
=0A<= div>   defined in [RFC7012] to export the BGP community informat= ion.  Three
=0A
   information elements, bgpCommun= ity, bgpSourceCommunityList and
=0A
   bgpDestinationCo= mmunityList, are introduced in this document to carry
=0A
 &= nbsp; the community information for the source IP and destination IP
= =0A
   respectively.
=0A
 
=0A
 =             &n= bsp;           &nbs= p;            =             &n= bsp;           &nbs= p;            =       
=0A
 
=0A
&nb= sp;
=0A
Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the= time of submission
=0A
until the htmlized version and diff are a= vailable at tools.ietf.org.
=0A
 
=0A
The IETF Secr= etariat
=0A
 
=0A
 
=0A
=0A ------=_001_NextPart662264702784_=------ From nobody Tue Nov 22 18:33:23 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 706311294DD; Tue, 22 Nov 2016 18:33:22 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.718 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.718 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id d59xI3p1E2HE; Tue, 22 Nov 2016 18:33:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D202D1294C9; Tue, 22 Nov 2016 18:33:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml703-cah.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id DBF18079; Wed, 23 Nov 2016 02:33:17 +0000 (GMT) Received: from NKGEML414-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.75) by lhreml703-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.104) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Wed, 23 Nov 2016 02:33:16 +0000 Received: from NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com ([fe80::a54a:89d2:c471:ff]) by nkgeml414-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.75]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Wed, 23 Nov 2016 10:33:08 +0800 From: Zhoutianran To: "IPFIX@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Review of draft-irtf-nmrg-location-ipfix-07.txt Thread-Index: AdJFMeytooRk3QHlRzWenibQnt6qXw== Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 02:33:08 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.111.156.116] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A090206.5834FFED.0129, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32 X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 3f348142d04dd870082c2a29d6c1d6ac Archived-At: Cc: "draft-irtf-nmrg-location-ipfix.authors@ietf.org" , "opsawg-chairs@ietf.org" , "nmrg-chairs@ietf.org" Subject: [IPFIX] Review of draft-irtf-nmrg-location-ipfix-07.txt X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 02:33:23 -0000 Hi, Though IPFIX is concluded, could the IPFIX experts in this mailing list ple= ase help to provide comments for this I-D? https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-nmrg-location-ipfix It seems this work has a long history. Your help will push this work a step= forward. Thanks, Tianran From nobody Wed Nov 23 03:02:49 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA000129C7F; Wed, 23 Nov 2016 03:02:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q0yKuII6C-jU; Wed, 23 Nov 2016 03:02:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wm0-x232.google.com (mail-wm0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9CCC8129C8F; Wed, 23 Nov 2016 03:02:35 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wm0-x232.google.com with SMTP id t79so18336330wmt.0; Wed, 23 Nov 2016 03:02:35 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=cuRSLhFuI5HIREZpWWc5iHc0FHNfbUEqBwhzjq7LqGo=; b=erbVWbRsBNrpJTy4cnRXlOCtcNaNVfJxJmBxxLaaya8r4MOVaKEAO717Wn6B2CUfQ8 W7MfdnMNe8nZgtDAkK7k/CLWYgyOJ2vggt6HnsJowSfybveO4jLXITXIAlqgcm2ZGzGG DjjxeVlOvxWSM547Pm5GIeI0bWxmOUeylw4Mi7uoQl4Kz8hE78+vR1ZJe3AgQ4LA5vhk bxAIZJneN760UyJ5Qo7blQ7Zh4FLMvw2u6FLwAbGRlquv07C+ZqLCdudfVmWFoMSb0cT xr8p/koiUiXtgZgKP7E1JwyV5r+rEGsz7tAAXcLAKTb6bAt7mpCtMow+ZdmjBlYW4sL3 Lxfw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=cuRSLhFuI5HIREZpWWc5iHc0FHNfbUEqBwhzjq7LqGo=; b=MCHBVrJARGt6l2hNC1vOBRRK17tbink9KPMI8FM9riQzaGWfoML7t76yZ81uZtvN4J FW7IBmAEFkG9sWXq6L+dcwqF3tvHT4D3q3JY96HAz9I+xT1mD4vfDi4CWyStpTHdRciO coIV8H8JNzyADsDZ91bxaeGW58Ol2+qHbJVihLlNckZ9CchVitFpylzjTv/cJiOpi5hK 6piHboSYlw3aDDx/Qd76dDWTVOcXA0FSWkuOuoq+FlUyynbvAG4htKQSWVdoKc1pXimS PUHWhqTHTfuEheaVGWQahS/bM0BehHwaIpnG9AHpKDgPIIz1PxSyDcaq+3TpfzaXhS94 g9zA== X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC012zqKmQUEb2XCFkxZs1ETXiGd1wCcSY5XGvD/Bk/7r3rso4R3GvDcsSTIiFHlr/Q== X-Received: by 10.28.161.67 with SMTP id k64mr6994418wme.69.1479898954215; Wed, 23 Nov 2016 03:02:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.2.131] (host213-123-124-182.in-addr.btopenworld.com. [213.123.124.182]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id js10sm35741677wjb.19.2016.11.23.03.02.33 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 23 Nov 2016 03:02:33 -0800 (PST) To: Zhoutianran , "IPFIX@ietf.org" References: From: Stewart Bryant Message-ID: <318bf874-2700-640e-e0c1-0ea7953b448f@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 11:02:31 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: "draft-irtf-nmrg-location-ipfix.authors@ietf.org" , "opsawg-chairs@ietf.org" , "nmrg-chairs@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [IPFIX] Review of draft-irtf-nmrg-location-ipfix-07.txt X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 11:02:46 -0000 Collecting this data is not particularly difficult, but protecting the privacy is much harder and will, I imagine be subject to significant scrutiny as the draft progresses. It seems to me that there are security and privacy issues concerning both the traffic and the collector itself. The privacy of the user is a widely understood concept and will I am sure be thoroughly examined in review. In the case of the collector I am not convinced that it is wise to reveal the precise location of the network infrastructure since this could result in it being subject to physical attack. An approach that you do not seem to explore is encrypting the location record so that this can only be understood by those that are authorised to see it. Indeed there is a case for something analogous to the selective availability system in GPS whereby the location is provided with different degrees of precision depending on the authority of the user. - Stewart On 23/11/2016 02:33, Zhoutianran wrote: > Hi, > > Though IPFIX is concluded, could the IPFIX experts in this mailing list please help to provide comments for this I-D? > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-nmrg-location-ipfix > > It seems this work has a long history. Your help will push this work a step forward. > > > Thanks, > Tianran > > _______________________________________________ > IPFIX mailing list > IPFIX@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix From nobody Thu Nov 24 06:43:30 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 098B3129428; Thu, 24 Nov 2016 06:43:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QNmXKqfzsCiU; Thu, 24 Nov 2016 06:43:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD1BB1294E6; Thu, 24 Nov 2016 06:43:24 -0800 (PST) From: Abdelkader Lahmadi X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,543,1473112800"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="201563690" Received: from skywalker.loria.fr ([152.81.8.55]) by mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 24 Nov 2016 15:43:22 +0100 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.1 \(1993\)) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_5F31D5C6-F96D-4491-93BB-22E15365282E"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5.2 In-Reply-To: <318bf874-2700-640e-e0c1-0ea7953b448f@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 15:43:22 +0100 Message-Id: <64CC7F98-8868-4BE5-ABE3-F6F01BF2FFF6@loria.fr> References: <318bf874-2700-640e-e0c1-0ea7953b448f@gmail.com> To: Stewart Bryant X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1993) Archived-At: Cc: "draft-irtf-nmrg-location-ipfix.authors@ietf.org" , "opsawg-chairs@ietf.org" , "IPFIX@ietf.org" , "nmrg-chairs@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [IPFIX] Review of draft-irtf-nmrg-location-ipfix-07.txt X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 14:43:28 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_5F31D5C6-F96D-4491-93BB-22E15365282E Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Hi, Thank you for the feedback. please see comments inline, I hope that they = help make things clear. > On 23 Nov 2016, at 12:02, Stewart Bryant = wrote: >=20 >=20 > Collecting this data is not particularly difficult, but protecting the = privacy is much harder and will, I imagine be subject to significant = scrutiny as the draft progresses. The core subject of the draft is far from providing solutions of privacy = issues when collecting sensitive data. We have clearly mentioned the = privacy issue in our draft in section =E2=80=99Security and Privacy = Considerations=E2=80=99. In the section we have referenced existing RFCs = that have addressed this issue for location information : [RFC3694], = [RFC3693] and also Flow record anonymization [RFC6235]. >=20 > It seems to me that there are security and privacy issues concerning = both the traffic and the collector itself. The privacy of the user is a = widely understood concept and will I am sure be thoroughly examined in = review. In the case of the collector I am not convinced that it is wise = to reveal the precise location of the network infrastructure since this = could result in it being subject to physical attack. In my opinion, we can also imagine another scenario where location = information will help operators to identify that their equipments have = not be moved or stolen, so associating IP flows to the location of the = device is helpful in this case. >=20 > An approach that you do not seem to explore is encrypting the location = record so that this can only be understood by those that are authorised = to see it. We have mentioned in the section =E2=80=99Security and privacy = Consideration=E2=80=99 that location information SHOULD be signed and = encrypted as specified in [RFC7011]. > Indeed there is a case for something analogous to the selective = availability system in GPS whereby the location is provided with = different degrees of precision depending on the authority of the user. >=20 In section =E2=80=98Enabling Location Extensions=E2=80=99, we have = mentioned that the metering process selects a location method when many = are available with different degrees of precision. Yes, we can make it = more clear by also mentioning that the selection depends on the = authority of the user. Best regards, > - Stewart >=20 >=20 > On 23/11/2016 02:33, Zhoutianran wrote: >> Hi, >>=20 >> Though IPFIX is concluded, could the IPFIX experts in this mailing = list please help to provide comments for this I-D? >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-nmrg-location-ipfix >>=20 >> It seems this work has a long history. Your help will push this work = a step forward. >>=20 >>=20 >> Thanks, >> Tianran >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> IPFIX mailing list >> IPFIX@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix >=20 > _______________________________________________ > IPFIX mailing list > IPFIX@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix --Apple-Mail=_5F31D5C6-F96D-4491-93BB-22E15365282E Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJYNvyKAAoJEBX1Mi7AAzI6UY4QAKYGixkLTjZQYN4TjjD0KvhH rGjZRuGvedoFkD3Jw46zNCMX1RTLy+QLZe9y1QepCN0/pUHE3zSyhgjZwFKEYBKb NVmb7RJAVz1MzH97oqJvi2aboZ74KWa3gub8SfWhd/NRQQVWNtAGP0WU3IscCoSR bMCec5v4RqpjMn7j4osOV8Hinh7zNCaxotHtigcXbEto2O22RgikGwYof0jcEgSk BlGizewneTkSoKeL8ctMcKX73txDACQh0imevy7eLj94t8owL+S0cEQfXoT3s/cT /uPmyG8/jsNO5K7qRCMHie75uhkY8SMnRc3VKZ7WwVpEg9qeA+D52Uyq7FZ/4xYa QSUGZZPXy8VX9u2KmklnBBk0ii9zRCiBcZd3VPB8Ea8nSQmx57IX24svAi59U8LC BCIdeHFIAkFdPTh2sXfiDpZygN0L9UKP92+0OLr/uHxq4EacsyYKglh1g1MIIG/Y 43khkojNbNhebODcVfsZw2Kk8+/Wy1vgxgt5uMfGk3PIMDARWbjcLEcUzbn+zl59 BGnx48CoXWni6bYsp44NenM+vc0sWJWcpra+tkQcA76aEdT6rt1Jsqzy8pUEusK/ /Q6+eIRzO4qAa4f51KAo/0KVqZEOcO+Uy2iA4Etl0AlR28Ne1I7u36AuYRsWDHJV bKyXf3/PzYBGY8ae8AIi =r7uS -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_5F31D5C6-F96D-4491-93BB-22E15365282E-- From nobody Thu Nov 24 07:36:12 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCD2D1297E8; Thu, 24 Nov 2016 07:36:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cgKqeFwN3_rt; Thu, 24 Nov 2016 07:36:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wm0-x22f.google.com (mail-wm0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A2D651297DE; Thu, 24 Nov 2016 07:36:08 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wm0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id a197so118215408wmd.0; Thu, 24 Nov 2016 07:36:08 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=0mVfJAJ3NBLmc3lDiRtO9tARF206Pm8VDbF48XL0Vsc=; b=GRfN7renpOJFCjOh6YsjKsmm/v5djc7g0GpcqCFzTh2n3jasdlZmXIeZUtn/tdJ0uJ rX04DLJfKghgCrhweqVmmgUbWnuAf24rMrs9EZp0l7xsbAMMNBuaLUIlHPRlyAPerbrD P2tQQpSHyiehHrIs99TU3Cr35ed+VQeS1NrQC8penARXpZSiQEqSkOiKGCO6U3GLPEqI HLWPfuU9E/I7CuaCb0PH6rwB0elLKx3bk+h47d1iu6bOR2EQraIASutTNMDkHKQq/v2f Ae3z720PbS9BA2T/f3/djMs4bTbOGSnWkufNE+LBWUX8GrzBp7HGTU5hYu4KCZX7i74A lqxA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=0mVfJAJ3NBLmc3lDiRtO9tARF206Pm8VDbF48XL0Vsc=; b=IUAFvFVOMY08VDqAcQ5rNPOgLR/pkPAVe1S2pGTsuEfc5NkFC2/gHSC1sPsAcCIff3 yISMUQuJRwNc++gRA1G6IGCMzPapU9akQuLdj+g7pz4plv9eqGcZheGJ9wewVTuNdAuX MmwrtJONhJUOJkP5Wgp8aaRQS4AcHWneCXllpBLVbbzDsnioOJ6bDtz22pmzB2cRpwXc YyYECSYmLfgi5vcEG4UM6OZk7+iYgkegDofHz6IVKOgT4o8J7CbZalJNav2cyLvKL1g+ n532hIxOsRQo8dwlXi6elFlYG03WMmNsDqmNjAD7sGTI1mipDly8WORSNBS1B2Gh6Ovq B2Tw== X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC00HITGJ0GBiKuTZSmTUtsnOR5ZdXddw+uRQqTymeKtnRLbwM2YBL1D5FVMIPOyl9A== X-Received: by 10.28.161.67 with SMTP id k64mr3087976wme.69.1480001767121; Thu, 24 Nov 2016 07:36:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.2.131] (host213-123-124-182.in-addr.btopenworld.com. [213.123.124.182]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t84sm8780131wmt.7.2016.11.24.07.36.06 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 24 Nov 2016 07:36:06 -0800 (PST) To: Abdelkader Lahmadi References: <318bf874-2700-640e-e0c1-0ea7953b448f@gmail.com> <64CC7F98-8868-4BE5-ABE3-F6F01BF2FFF6@loria.fr> From: Stewart Bryant Message-ID: Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 15:36:04 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <64CC7F98-8868-4BE5-ABE3-F6F01BF2FFF6@loria.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Cc: "draft-irtf-nmrg-location-ipfix.authors@ietf.org" , "opsawg-chairs@ietf.org" , "IPFIX@ietf.org" , "nmrg-chairs@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [IPFIX] Review of draft-irtf-nmrg-location-ipfix-07.txt X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 15:36:11 -0000 On 24/11/2016 14:43, Abdelkader Lahmadi wrote: > Hi, > Thank you for the feedback. please see comments inline, I hope that they help make things clear. >> On 23 Nov 2016, at 12:02, Stewart Bryant wrote: >> >> >> Collecting this data is not particularly difficult, but protecting the privacy is much harder and will, I imagine be subject to significant scrutiny as the draft progresses. > The core subject of the draft is far from providing solutions of privacy issues when collecting sensitive data. We have clearly mentioned the privacy issue in our draft in section ’Security and Privacy Considerations’. In the section we have referenced existing RFCs that have addressed this issue for location information : [RFC3694], [RFC3693] and also Flow record anonymization [RFC6235]. I guess we will see what happens during the review process. >> It seems to me that there are security and privacy issues concerning both the traffic and the collector itself. The privacy of the user is a widely understood concept and will I am sure be thoroughly examined in review. In the case of the collector I am not convinced that it is wise to reveal the precise location of the network infrastructure since this could result in it being subject to physical attack. > In my opinion, we can also imagine another scenario where location information will help operators to identify that their equipments have not be moved or stolen, so associating IP flows to the location of the device is helpful in this case. If you just want to know where the kit is, I am sure there are better way that than put it in IPFIX records. I am however wary of providing such detailed information on where an equipment is other than on a need to know basis. We live in very turbulent times and physical security is just as important as information security. > >> An approach that you do not seem to explore is encrypting the location record so that this can only be understood by those that are authorised to see it. > We have mentioned in the section ’Security and privacy Consideration’ that location information SHOULD be signed and encrypted as specified in [RFC7011]. That text does not go beyond saying use industry best practice. > >> Indeed there is a case for something analogous to the selective availability system in GPS whereby the location is provided with different degrees of precision depending on the authority of the user. >> > In section ‘Enabling Location Extensions’, we have mentioned that the metering process selects a location method when many are available with different degrees of precision. Yes, we can make it more clear by also mentioning that the selection depends on the authority of the user. > Best regards, Maybe. My point was that different users of the information have a right to different degrees of precision. So for example whilst many people might be satisfied with "London", and others might need to know "Westminister", few would need to know "in the top right draw of the Prime Minister's desk", but you can imagine why some people might be worried. My example is of course fanciful, but serves to illustrate that we need to be very sensitive to need-to-know when it comes to precision location of infrastructure, and the operator of the metering process may not fully appreciate the sensitivity. - Stewart > > >> - Stewart >> >> >> On 23/11/2016 02:33, Zhoutianran wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Though IPFIX is concluded, could the IPFIX experts in this mailing list please help to provide comments for this I-D? >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-nmrg-location-ipfix >>> >>> It seems this work has a long history. Your help will push this work a step forward. >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Tianran >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> IPFIX mailing list >>> IPFIX@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix >> _______________________________________________ >> IPFIX mailing list >> IPFIX@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix