Dear EMU chairs: please approve this non-member post, thanks. Since in your WG you deal with Identity privacy improvements we think this new discussion list may be of interest to you! Thanks! Best regards - also on behalf of Behcet Dirk ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: IETF Secretariat <ietf-secretar...@ietf.org<mailto:ietf-secretar...@ietf.org>> Date: Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 3:32 PM Subject: New Non-WG Mailing List: PidLoc To: IETF Announcement List <ietf-annou...@ietf.org<mailto:ietf-annou...@ietf.org>> Cc: pid...@ietf.org<mailto:pid...@ietf.org>, dirk.von-h...@telekom.de<mailto:dirk.von-h...@telekom.de>, sarikaya2...@gmail.com<mailto:sarikaya2...@gmail.com>
A new IETF non-working group email list has been created. List address: pid...@ietf.org<mailto:pid...@ietf.org> Archive: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pidloc/ To subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pidloc Purpose: In IdLoc protocols like LISP, ILA, etc. separation between (fixed) Identifier and (dynamic) Location is proposed to find optimum path for data packets to/from moving devices The threats against privacy in IdLoc protocols include location privacy where if a third party can at any time determine the IP location of some identifier, then the device can at one point be IP geolocated and movement privacy where if a third party can determine that an identifier has changed locator(s) at time T, then even without knowing the particular locators before and after, it can correlate this movement event with other information to create a binding between the identifier and a person. Privacy and security work is needed both in control and data plane There is an existing draft https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-nordmark-id-loc-privacy-00.txt that is expected to serve as a starting point. The work is expected to clear the way for a wider acceptance/deployment of IdLoc protocol. This may open new application areas such as in future mobile networks. In future mobile networks more efficient differentiation of packet handling according to specific service demands (QoS) are expected. Traditional tunneling and encapsulation between IP addresses (= Id and/or Loc) have disadvantages
_______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
