[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02

Network Working Group                                   U. Chunduri, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                  A. Clemm
Intended status: Informational                       Huawei Technologies
Expires: December 23, 2017                                      M. Menth
                                                 University of Tuebingen
                                                           June 21, 2017


                      Identity Use Cases in IDEAS
                 draft-ccm-ideas-identity-use-cases-00

Abstract

   IDentity-EnAbled networkS (IDEAS) introduce the concept of Identity
   into networking.  This concept includes an Identity/Identifier split,
   which complements existing Locator/Identifier separation
   technologies.  This document summarizes some conceptual use cases to
   illustrate the usefulness of IDEAS.

Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119 [RFC2119].

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on December 23, 2017.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.





Chunduri, et al.        Expires December 23, 2017               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft         Identity Use Cases in IDEAS             June 2017


   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Acronyms  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Identity (IDy) in IDEAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Identity Use Cases  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.2.  Policies  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       3.2.1.  Access Restriction Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.3.  Metadata  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.4.  Access Security and Manageability . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.5.  Delay-Tolerant Networking (DTN) . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8

1.  Introduction

   An Internet Protocol (IP) [RFC0791] address signifies both a
   Communication Entity's (Section 1.1) Location and its Identification.
   Location and Identification separation protocols, for example LISP
   [RFC6830] and HIP [RFC7401], introduced the concept of Identifier and
   separated this information from the Locator (IP address in this
   case).

   The Location/Identifier split separates Location and Identification
   function for a specific networking device, i.e., the Identifier
   denotes a device while the Locator denotes a routable network
   interface.  LISP and HIP are examples for protocols supporting
   Location/Identifier split.  With this split, multiple benefits in
   networking can be realized, e.g., in the areas of mobility, network
   virtualization, traffic engineering, security, software-defined
   networking, and others.




Chunduri, et al.        Expires December 23, 2017               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft         Identity Use Cases in IDEAS             June 2017


   IDEAS goes one step further and makes a distinction between Identity
   and Identifier, which introduces an Identity/Identifier split.  The
   abstraction of an Identity and the corresponding split from
   Identifiers can bring additional benefits that can be combined with
   Location/Identifier separation.

   These potential benefits, which may not be immediately apparent,
   include benefits in the areas of privacy i.e., the ability to have
   multiple identifiers for the same entity which can be used for
   anonymous communication, identity-based access controls at the
   mapping system, and application of various policies uniformly across
   Identifiers pertaining to an Identity.  Identity also enables various
   management aspects at the mapping system efficiently.

   The above use cases are further detailed in Section 3, to show how
   another abstraction of Identity from identifiers help to enable
   various services in the data communication with in IDEAS.

1.1.  Acronyms

          Communication Entity: A device used for IP-based data
          communication

          Entity: Refer to Communication Entity

          GRIDS: GeneRic Identity Services - a mapping and Identity
          services system that will be defined in the context of IDEAS

          HIP: Host Identity Protocol

          IDf: Identifier - denotes information to unambiguously
          identify an entity within a given scope.  Examples LISP EID
          [RFC6830], HIP HIT [RFC7401] There is no constraint on the
          format, obfuscation or routability of an Identifier.

          IDy: Identity - a unique identifier for a communications
          entity that is assigned by the provider of the communications
          service and that is used by the provider to identify and
          authenticate the communications entity, but that is not
          revealed on the wire.

          LOC: Locator, for example, IPv4/IPv6 based

          LISP: The Locator/ID Separation Protocol

          Metadata: Metadata is data about an Identity.  The metadata
          may contain information such as the nature of the entity for
          example or opaque information about the Identity



Chunduri, et al.        Expires December 23, 2017               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft         Identity Use Cases in IDEAS             June 2017


2.  Identity (IDy) in IDEAS

   An Identity uniquely identifies a Communication Entity.  IDy is a set
   of bytes, which MAY have a partial structure and MAY be given by the
   provider of the communication service.  Typically, an IDy SHOULD NOT
   be revealed on the wire for privacy reasons.

   It is used for secure registration of the Communication Entity to the
   provider and it MAY be represented by multiple Identifiers (IDf's) in
   the data plane.  IDy can be seen as a 'permanent Identifier' of a
   communication entity.

   Also for privacy reasons, access to the [IDy, IDf] mapping
   information may be restricted to a defined set of communication
   entities.  These communication patterns require new, GeneRic ID
   Services (GRIDS), which map these Identifiers to their Identities and
   provide additional services based on the Identities (apart from the
   traditional Identifier/Location mapping).  In the following
   (Section 3) various IDy use cases point out benefits of Identity in
   IDEAS.

   The following diagram Figure 1 illustrates a simplified relation of
   Identity , Identifier and Locators [IDy, IDf, LOC].

     +---------------------------------------------------------------+
     | Identity (IDy)          | Policy        | Metadata |   MI     |
     +---------------------------------------------------------------+
              |
              +---------------------+--------------------+
              |                     |                        |
              V                     V                    V
     +------------------------+ +--------------+   +-------------------+
     |Identifier(IDf)-1 | LOC1| | IDf-2 | LOC2 |...| IDf-n| LOC1..LOCm |
     +------------------------+ +--------------+   +-------------------+

          MI -  Management and Security Information

         Figure 1: Identity and Identifier, Location Relationship

3.  Identity Use Cases

   The need for an Identity can be described by a few simple uses of the
   same as specified below.








Chunduri, et al.        Expires December 23, 2017               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft         Identity Use Cases in IDEAS             June 2017


3.1.  Privacy

   To communicate with a device on a network, a LOC is needed.  In
   current [IDf, LOC] protocols, a Mapping Server (MS) stores the
   [IDf,LOC] mapping.  The resolution request or lookup of an IDf to the
   MS will return the LOC.

   Generally, an entity with a certain Identity may use various
   Identifiers for communication.  Only the Identifier is visible on the
   wire.  Changing the IDf frequently makes it hard to track the entity
   by outside observers on the Internet and thus improves privacy of the
   communication entities.

   While it may be desirable to change the IDf every now and then for
   privacy purposes, the notion of Identity in addition to IDf is
   important a) to retain the ability to look up a communication entity
   by a 'long-lived IDf' and b) to convey an authorized network entity
   who is behind a given (ephemeral) IDf that is visible on the wire.
   To put it simply, while the IDy of a communicating entity is
   obfuscated to outside observers, it is revealed to communicating
   parties with a legitimate need to know.

3.2.  Policies

   Networks may treat traffic differently depending on the IDy of source
   or destination.  E.g., certain traffic may access the network
   directly, other traffic may need to pass a firewall, or other traffic
   is entirely blocked.  Based on IDy of communication peers involved,
   and independent of the particular IDf used in a data packet (see
   Section 3.1), traffic may be treated with different Quality of
   Service (QoS).

   Likewise, the use of alternative IDfs for the same system may allow
   for different treatment of traffic for the same system depending on
   how the system is referred to.  This can be leveraged by combining
   the enforcement of network policies with policies that guide
   selective mapping responses.  E.g., some requesting groups may
   receive an empty response from GRIDS system for IDfs referring to a
   certain IDy, others receive an IDf resulting in strict security
   treatment of future traffic, and trusted groups receive an IDf
   resulting in rather loose security treatment.

3.2.1.  Access Restriction Policies

   An entity may define that it wants to communicate only with certain
   other entities.  To achieve this, an entity MAY define a rule
   regarding who can request and obtain its IDf.  The GRIDS system will
   send a negative or empty response when it detects that the



Chunduri, et al.        Expires December 23, 2017               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft         Identity Use Cases in IDEAS             June 2017


   combination of resolution query and its initiator does not pass the
   rule validation test.

   Moreover, network-based access control may filter based on IDfs which
   are visible in the traffic, or in a more elegant way based on IDys,
   which may be looked to ensure if communication is still allowed after
   IDf change, for example.  By basing access control on the notion of
   Identity, enforcement and maintainability of access control rules is
   greatly simplified as it does not need to track IDf changes or the
   introduction of new IDfs for the same IDy.

3.3.  Metadata

   The GRIDS system is envisioned to store Metadata (Section 1.1) and
   provide some search functionality.  The GRIDS system with [IDy, IDf]
   may be a means to find a set of IDys with certain metadata provided
   that they have agreed to be searchable (allow discovery).  Moreover,
   their IDfs can be looked up.  E.g., it may be possible to find out
   the current IDfs of a set of deployed devices of particular type.
   This allows to locate them via [IDf, LOC] mappings and possibly
   manage them.

   Identity also allows to have metadata associated it to be applied,
   regardless of which IDf is used to refer it.  This association makes
   the management of metadata easier, because it does not need to be
   maintained separately and redundantly for every IDf.

3.4.  Access Security and Manageability

   Identity can be used for storing access security credentials to the
   GRIDS and subscription information of the user entity securely as
   opposed to various Identifiers representing the entity.  As secure
   registration to the GRIDS would be an expensive operation, this
   SHOULD be restricted to IDy and (ephemeral) IDfs can be generated and
   can be given rather securely using the same secure channel.

   Identity also allows separation of lifecycle of IDy to be different
   from Identifiers, which enables to extend the "right-to-be-forgotten"
   concerning personal data to network identifier data, if required.
   There are various possible scenarios on why a long-lived IDfs by a
   communication entity has to be withdrawn.  Common cases involved
   lost/stolen device or misused Identifiers for example.

3.5.  Delay-Tolerant Networking (DTN)

   Entities may be only temporarily reachable on the Internet.  When
   they are not reachable, proxies may be used to receive their traffic.
   To that end, a IDy MAY register one of the IDfs of its proxy with the



Chunduri, et al.        Expires December 23, 2017               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft         Identity Use Cases in IDEAS             June 2017


   GRIDS system that this node can, e.g., receive traffic for that node
   and later forward to it when the node is again online.  A major
   application field may be in the IoT with mobile and intermittently
   connected devices

4.  Acknowledgements

   Thanks to Padma Pillay-Esnault for so many conversations around
   Identity and its potential uses in IDEAS.

5.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no actions for IANA.

6.  Security Considerations

   This document further abstracts Identity from the Identifier in
   current Identifier/Locator protocols.  This abstraction gives
   significant security benefits in Identity enables networks with
   respect to anonymization of communications on the wire and access
   controls at the GRIDS specified in
   [I-D.padma-ideas-problem-statement].

7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [RFC0791]  Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc791>.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

7.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.padma-ideas-problem-statement]
              Pillay-Esnault, P., Boucadair, M., Jacquenet, C.,
              Fioccola, G., and A. Nennker, "Problem Statement for
              Identity Enabled Networks", draft-padma-ideas-problem-
              statement-01 (work in progress), March 2017.

   [RFC6830]  Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The
              Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6830, January 2013,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6830>.



Chunduri, et al.        Expires December 23, 2017               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft         Identity Use Cases in IDEAS             June 2017


   [RFC7401]  Moskowitz, R., Ed., Heer, T., Jokela, P., and T.
              Henderson, "Host Identity Protocol Version 2 (HIPv2)",
              RFC 7401, DOI 10.17487/RFC7401, April 2015,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7401>.

Authors' Addresses

   Uma Chunduri (editor)
   Huawei Technologies
   2330 Central Expressway
   Santa Clara, CA  95050
   USA

   Email: uma.chunduri@huawei.com


   Alexander Clemm
   Huawei Technologies
   2330 Central Expressway
   Santa Clara, CA  95050
   USA

   Email: ludwig@clemm.org


   Michael Menth
   University of Tuebingen
   Germany

   Email: menth@uni-tuebingen.de





















Chunduri, et al.        Expires December 23, 2017               [Page 8]

Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129b, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/