[Ndn-interest] NDN protocol principles: no privacy?

[Luca Muscariello]

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.

So I disagree that privacy is a principle.
Not all communications are private.

Luca



On Monday, 14 March 2016, Mark Stapp <mjs at cisco.com> wrote:

> interesting -
>
> On 3/14/16 11:27 AM, Burke, Jeff wrote:
>
>>
>> [...]
> RFC 6973 takes a nice approach, for example, by offering
>
>> definitions of some technical properties and mechanisms, but not trying
>>> to formulate an overall definition of "privacy".
>>>
>>
>> So I can try to understand your point here - do you agree with the
>>
> authors that the primary privacy concerns are those of individuals? (Or,
> more generally, are corporations people here for this discussion - a
> more generic "data owner"?)
>
>>
>>
> 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?
>
> The editors there say
>>> that the body of the document, the discussion of the tradeoffs and
>>> alternatives, is the best way they could come up with to approach that
>>> abstraction. in practical terms, as you know well I think there's been
>>> an over-reliance on opportunistic caching in ICN generally, and as a
>>> result observability and correlation are defined to be positive
>>> properties of ICN communication rather than harmful ones.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Would I be correct to parse your concerns into two pieces that may
>>
> have different implications:
>
>>
>> - Confidentiality of request (e.g., the consumer side)
>> - Confidentiality of publication (e.g., the publisher side)
>>
>>
> 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"?
>
> [...]
>
>
>>> most of these six "principles" sounded like "mechanisms" to me - the
>>> list felt like the end of a discussion about alternatives and the best
>>> ways to implement an architecture, rather than the start of one. it
>>> sounded like "we're tired of questions about LPM in the PIT, so we're
>>> going to stop calling that a possible mechanism and start calling it an
>>> inevitable, immutable, unquestionable 'principle'".
>>>
>>
>> Well, to take LPM for an example - it's actually not mentioned in
>> the
>>
> principle doc that Alex sent. The principle I suspect that you are
> referring to is:
>
>>
>> [5] In-Network Name Discovery: Interests should be able use
>> incomplete
>>
> names to retrieve data packets.
>
>> A consumer may not know the complete network-level name for data, as
>>
> some parts of the name cannot be guessed, computed, or inferred
> beforehand. Once initial data is received, naming conventions can help
> determine complete names of other related data:
>
>>
>>
>> * majority of interests will carry complete names
>>
>> * in-network name discovery expected to be used to bootstrap
>>
> communication)
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Can you explain your objection in these terms?
>>
>>
> 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.
>
> Thanks,
> Mark
> _______________________________________________
> Ndn-interest mailing list
> Ndn-interest at lists.cs.ucla.edu
> http://www.lists.cs.ucla.edu/mailman/listinfo/ndn-interest
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.lists.cs.ucla.edu/pipermail/ndn-interest/attachments/20160314/2f917830/attachment.html>