Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-grow-geomrt-04.txt> (Multi-threaded Routing Toolkit (MRT) Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) routing information export format with geo-location extensions) to Proposed Standard

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Sounds good to me!  Thanks,
--Richard


On Aug 16, 2011, at 8:53 PM, Terry Manderson wrote:

> Hi Richard, 
> 
> Thanks for reading and reviewing.
> 
> There should be no rules attached to the location data in the GEOMRT format,
> and as you point out there is (in MRT) no way to communicate these rule if
> they were to exist.
> 
> That said, and augmenting your text only slightly, I will add the following
> as a new 'Privacy Considerations' section of draft-ietf-grow-geomrt.
> 
> ---
> 
> The GEOPRIV [RFC6280] architecture requires that privacy rules attached to a
> location object be transmitted alongside the location information in the
> object. If a BGP Collector adds location coordinates to an MRT record based
> on GEOPRIV location objects, then it would have to include privacy rules as
> well. Since the MRT geo-location format does support the the provision of
> privacy rules, each location entry in an MRT object is assigned the
> following default privacy rules [RFC4119]:
> 
> -- retransmission-allowed: True
> -- retention-expires: 100 years from timestamp of the MRT object
> -- ruleset-reference: Empty
> -- note-well: Empty
> 
> Location information derived from a location object with more restrictive
> privacy rules MUST NOT be included in a MRT geo-location record unless there
> are non-technical measures in place that enforce and communicate the
> constraints on the use of the location information in the MRT geo-location
> format (e.g., contractual agreements between peers).
> 
> ---
> 
> This supports the text in the security considerations section, but I think
> it deserves its own section.
> 
> Ok with you?
> 
> Cheers
> Terry
> 
> On 17/08/11 6:44 AM, "Richard L. Barnes" <rbarnes@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> It would be helpful to clarify the relationship between this work and other
>> IETF work on geolocation, namely GEOPRIV [RFC6280].  I don't think there's a
>> huge change required, but a simple paragraph could be helpful; suggested text
>> is below.
>> 
>> The first question is what role a geomrt router plays in the GEOPRIV system.
>> Given that a GeoMRT router is receiving location (somehow) from peers and
>> sending it back out, one could argue that it's a Location Server, and thus
>> needs to both (1) obey, and (2) forward any privacy rules attached to a
>> location object.  I wouldn't say it's a Viewer, since it's preserving the
>> location information as location information; I would think of a Viewer as
>> something that's going to use the location to do something else, like Yelp or
>> OpenTable, or even a location-based routing system (I hear they exist for
>> DTNs).
>> 
>> So in principle, location objects from which a geomrt router builds a geomrt
>> object could have rules attached that give less than full access, and in that
>> case, GEOPRIV would call for those rules to be sent along with the location
>> info in the geomrt object.
>> 
>> Now, there are two ways to respond to this situation:
>> 1. Add privacy/rules fields to geomrt
>> 2. Require that location info that feeds into a geomrt object not have rules
>> attached (i.e., it must be public)
>> 
>> ISTM that the latter approach makes more sense for this document, since this
>> format is largely intended for low-risk, publication-style information
>> sharing.  Suggested text (probably in Security Considerations):
>> "
>> The GEOPRIV architecture requires that rules attached to a location object be
>> transmitted alongside the location information in the object.  If a router
>> adds location to an MRT object based on GEOPRIV location objects, then it
>> would have to include rules as well.  Since the MRT geolocation format does
>> not include fields to carry privacy rules, each location entry in an MRT
>> object is assigned the following default privacy rules [RFC4119]:
>> -- retransmission-allowed: True
>> -- retention-expires: 100 years from timestamp of the MRT object
>> -- ruleset-reference: Empty
>> -- note-well: Empty
>> Location information derived from a location object with more restrictive
>> rules MUST NOT be included in an MRT object unless there are non-technical
>> measures in place  that enforce and communicate the constraints on the use of
>> the location information in the MRT object (e.g., contractual agreements
>> between peers).
>> 
>> Location information that originates from sources other than GEOPRIV location
>> objects (e.g., GPS chips, emails from peers) does not have the same formal
>> requirements, but should nonetheless be handled as potentially private
>> information requiring the  permission of the source before publication.
>> "
>> 
>> 
>> On Aug 12, 2011, at 11:23 AM, The IESG wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> The IESG has received a request from the Global Routing Operations WG
>>> (grow) to consider the following document:
>>> - 'Multi-threaded Routing Toolkit (MRT) Border Gateway Protocol (BGP)
>>>  routing information export format with geo-location extensions'
>>> <draft-ietf-grow-geomrt-04.txt> as a Proposed Standard
>>> 
>>> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
>>> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
>>> ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2011-08-26. Exceptionally, comments may be
>>> sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the
>>> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>>> 
>>> Abstract
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  This document updates the Multi-threaded Routing Toolkit (MRT) export
>>>  format for Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) routing information by
>>>  extending it to include optional terrestrial coordinates of a BGP
>>>  Collector and its BGP Peers.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The file can be obtained via
>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-grow-geomrt/
>>> 
>>> IESG discussion can be tracked via
>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-grow-geomrt/
>>> 
>>> 
>>> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> IETF-Announce mailing list
>>> IETF-Announce@xxxxxxxx
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ietf mailing list
>> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]