<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Although not all communications are private, it does not follow that a network should be designed such that it is impossible obtain privacy or violates the
privacy of communication…. Perhaps the principle is instead the “ability to preserve privacy” of communication.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">bonnie<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> Ndn-interest [mailto:ndn-interest-bounces@lists.cs.ucla.edu]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Luca Muscariello<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, March 14, 2016 1:00 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Mark Stapp<br>
<b>Cc:</b> UCLA NDN List<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Ndn-interest] NDN protocol principles: no privacy?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Imposing that all communications must be private is in contradiction with the principle of universality as long as the network is supposed to carry any kind of application.<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">So I disagree that privacy is a principle.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Not all communications are private. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Luca<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
On Monday, 14 March 2016, Mark Stapp <<a href="mailto:mjs@cisco.com">mjs@cisco.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">interesting -<br>
<br>
On 3/14/16 11:27 AM, Burke, Jeff wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">[...]<br>
RFC 6973 takes a nice approach, for example, by offering<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<p class="MsoNormal">definitions of some technical properties and mechanisms, but not trying<br>
to formulate an overall definition of "privacy".<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
So I can try to understand your point here - do you agree with the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">authors that the primary privacy concerns are those of individuals? (Or,<br>
more generally, are corporations people here for this discussion - a<br>
more generic "data owner"?)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
hmm - well, I don't think corporations are people, in the citizens united sense, but I think there's lots of commercial communication that needs to have the best possible protection, whether it's B2C or B2B?<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<p class="MsoNormal">The editors there say<br>
that the body of the document, the discussion of the tradeoffs and<br>
alternatives, is the best way they could come up with to approach that<br>
abstraction. in practical terms, as you know well I think there's been<br>
an over-reliance on opportunistic caching in ICN generally, and as a<br>
result observability and correlation are defined to be positive<br>
properties of ICN communication rather than harmful ones.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
Would I be correct to parse your concerns into two pieces that may<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">have different implications:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
- Confidentiality of request (e.g., the consumer side)<br>
- Confidentiality of publication (e.g., the publisher side)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
I think I have a mental image of "confidential request" - where an observer cannot see much beyond the routeable prefix needed to reach an instance of the service I want to communicate with. I'm not sure what "confidential publication" means, though? I think
I want the replies to my requests to be encrypted with ephemeral, forward-secure key material, I don't want the names in the replies to expose any more than the names in the requests, and I want to be able to authenticate the service before I expose anything
about my own identity or intentions. is that what you meant by "the publisher side"?<br>
<br>
[...]<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
most of these six "principles" sounded like "mechanisms" to me - the<br>
list felt like the end of a discussion about alternatives and the best<br>
ways to implement an architecture, rather than the start of one. it<br>
sounded like "we're tired of questions about LPM in the PIT, so we're<br>
going to stop calling that a possible mechanism and start calling it an<br>
inevitable, immutable, unquestionable 'principle'".<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
Well, to take LPM for an example - it's actually not mentioned in<br>
the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">principle doc that Alex sent. The principle I suspect that you are<br>
referring to is:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
[5] In-Network Name Discovery: Interests should be able use<br>
incomplete<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">names to retrieve data packets.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">A consumer may not know the complete network-level name for data, as<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">some parts of the name cannot be guessed, computed, or inferred<br>
beforehand. Once initial data is received, naming conventions can help<br>
determine complete names of other related data:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
* majority of interests will carry complete names<br>
<br>
* in-network name discovery expected to be used to bootstrap<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">communication)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
<br>
<br>
Can you explain your objection in these terms?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
sure - I don't want to expose names that identify me, or expose my communication activities. given that, the "network" doesn't have the job of finding things for me by partial names - I only want to expose the details of my communication to a service that I
have authenticated, and only when those details are encrypted. the "names" visible to the network in that sort of world just get the packets moving - and the only LPM needed is LPM in the FIB to get me to one or more instances of a service.<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
Mark<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Ndn-interest mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ndn-interest@lists.cs.ucla.edu">Ndn-interest@lists.cs.ucla.edu</a><br>
<a href="http://www.lists.cs.ucla.edu/mailman/listinfo/ndn-interest" target="_blank">http://www.lists.cs.ucla.edu/mailman/listinfo/ndn-interest</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p><br>
__________________________________________________________________________</p>
<p>This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and<br>
may contain confidential information. Any unauthorized review, use,<br>
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended<br>
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies<br>
of the original message.</p></body>
</html>