Subject: [ipwave] Draft IPWAVE Agenda for IETF 103

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 03:23:34 -0400

https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/103/materials/agenda-103-ipwave-00

Please send comments to the list.

Russ

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 10:33:03 +0200

Hi,

For the IP/OCB slot:

Presenter's name: Unfortunately I can not make it to the next IETF.
We discussed among co-authors and maybe Nabil could.

With respect to the contents:
- the draft is updated with all recent comments since last IETF,
   including comments from 6man WG, from Erik and from the HRPC (Human
   Rights Protocol Considerations, Amelia).
- during the HRPC review there was a request of adding a section
   titled "Pseudonym Handling".  The section is there, but empty.
   We try to find someone to fill it in?

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-30#page-5

Alex

Le 23/10/2018 à 09:23, Russ Housley a écrit :
> _______________________________________________
> its mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
>

---

From: Nabil Benamar <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 10:40:36 +0100

Hi Russ, All

I will present our draft during IPWAVE session. Please update the agenda
with my name.

Thanks

Best regards
Nabil Benamar
-------------------
نبيل بنعمرو

---

From: "Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 21:15:39 +0900

Hi Russ,
Could you update the agenda with the latest version of our PS document as
follows?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OLD:
11:55 IP-based Vehicular Networking: Use Cases, Survey and Problem
Statement ..................................... 20 min
Presenter: Jaehoon Paul Jeong
Draft: draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-04

NEW:
11:55  IP Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments (IPWAVE): Problem
Statement and Use Cases ..................................... 20 min
Presenter: Jaehoon Paul Jeong
Draft: draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-06
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I tried to reflect the comments from the volunteering reviewers (Erik
Nordmark, Michelle Wetterwald, Dirk von Hugo, and François Simon)
on the latest version of our IPWAVE PS document:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-06

I sincerely appreciate their efforts to improve this document.

However, this latest PS document did not address Human Rights Review of
draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-04 from
Amelia Andersdotter yet.
I think our IPWAVE WG will need to discuss what items should be addressed
in the PS document.

Thanks.

Best Regards,
Paul

-- 
===========================
Mr. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Software
Sungkyunkwan University
Office: +82-31-299-4957
Email: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Personal Homepage: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php
<http://cpslab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php>

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 12:57:09 +0000

Hi Alex,
thanks for all the effort you have put in updating the draft https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-30!
Very much appreciated!

With respect to the empty section on 'Pseudonym Handling' and your - I think still unanswered - question a month ago I would suggest an expert (I am none, unfortunately) to add some text as

The demand for privacy protection of vehicles' and drivers' identities which could be granted by using a pseudonym or alias identity at the same time may hamper the required confidentiality of messages and trust between participants - especially in safety critical vehicular communication.  A proper pseudonymization tool operated by a trusted third party may be needed to ensure both aspects concurrently.  Pseudonymity is also discussed in [I-D.ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking] in sect. 4.2.4 and 5.1.2.

BTW instead of very recently updated [I-D.ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking] still the expired draft [I-D.ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-survey] is referenced in the OCB draft - I assume that is not intentional?

Further nits in the latest version cover: 
Net-Iface => Net_Iface
occured => occurred
admninistered => administered

beside typos in references and Annex ...

Thanks!
Kind regards
Dirk

-----Original Message-----
From: its [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Alexandre Petrescu
Sent: Dienstag, 23. Oktober 2018 10:33
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ipwave] Draft IPWAVE Agenda for IETF 103

Hi,

For the IP/OCB slot:

Alex

---

From: Amelia Andersdotter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 01:35:24 +0200

Hi Alex,

I feel like I didn't get back to this for a number of weeks, when I
should have.

Picking up an old question: RFC8280 doesn't need to be listed as a
references, because it's a IRTF Research Group document. The review is
meant to be helpful, not compulsory.

Your changes to the draft following my comments (esp. what is now sect.
5, section 4.6, etc.) voided much of what I originally had envisaged
could be the use of a specific subsection. Based on the current text in
draft  30 and Dirks proposal I would like to put forward:

"The demand for privacy protection of vehicles' and drivers' identities
which could be granted by using a pseudonym or alias identity at the
same time may hamper the required confidentiality of messages and trust
between participants - especially in safety critical vehicular
communication. *Particular challenges arise when the pseudonymization
mechanism used relies on (randomized) re-addressing.* A proper
pseudonymization tool operated by a trusted third party may be needed to
ensure both aspects concurrently. *This is discussed in sect. 4.6 and
5.* Pseudonymity is also discussed in
[I-D.ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking] in sect. 4.2.4 and 5.1.2."

This ties back into the effort you've put into section 5 and 4, and a
separate benefit ois convergence around a single concept
("pseudonymity") for describing one envisaged privacy feature (which is
otherwise alternately described as randomization or re-addressing) that
is relevant to the RFC.

best regards,

Amelia

-- 
Amelia Andersdotter
Technical Consultant, Digital Programme

ARTICLE19
www.article19.org

PGP: 3D5D B6CA B852 B988 055A 6A6F FEF1 C294 B4E8 0B55