[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01

Network Working Group                                   U. Chunduri, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                  A. Clemm
Intended status: Informational                       Huawei Technologies
Expires: January 4, 2018                                        M. Menth
                                                 University of Tuebingen
                                                            July 3, 2017


                      Identity Use Cases in IDEAS
                 draft-ccm-ideas-identity-use-cases-01

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
   and benefit from both novel communication paradigms.  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 January 4, 2018.

Copyright Notice

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




Chunduri, et al.         Expires January 4, 2018                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft         Identity Use Cases in IDEAS             July 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.  Need for Identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Identity (IDy) in IDEAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Identity Use Cases  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.1.  Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.2.  Unified Policies  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       4.2.1.  Access Restriction Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.3.  Uses of Metadata  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.4.  Access Security and Manageability . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.5.  Delay-Tolerant Networking (DTN) . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   5.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9

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 HIP
   [RFC7401] and LISP [RFC6830], 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.  With Location/Identifier 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 January 4, 2018                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft         Identity Use Cases in IDEAS             July 2017


   IDEAS goes one step further and makes a distinction between Identity
   and Identifier, and 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.  The abstracted Identity still
   corresponds to network layer, like Locator/Identifier and not related
   to transport or application Identities.

   These potential benefits are 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 (MS), and application of various policies
   uniformly across Identifiers pertaining to an Identity.  Identity
   also enables various management aspects at the mapping system
   efficiently.

1.1.  Acronyms

          Communication Entity: A device used for IP-based (in some case
          Layer-2 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.
          This goes beyond traditional mapping of Location/Identifier
          and can include Identity based services(e.g. policy/metadata/
          grouping service).

          HIP: Host Identity Protocol

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

          IDy: Identity - a unique identifier for a communications
          entity that MAY be assigned by the GRIDS-provider and that is
          used by the provider to identify and authenticate the
          communications entity, but that is not revealed in the packet
          headers.

          LOC: Locator, for example, IPv4/IPv6 based

          LISP: The Locator/ID Separation Protocol






Chunduri, et al.         Expires January 4, 2018                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft         Identity Use Cases in IDEAS             July 2017


          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

          MS: Traditional Mapping Server for LOC/IDf protocols (e.g.
          HIP RVS, LISP-DDT)

2.  Need for Identity

   An entity can use multiple Identifiers for anonymous communication in
   the data plane [I-D.farinacci-lisp-eid-anonymity] or for other
   reasons, for example to representing different locators
   simultaneously.  When multiple Identifiers are in use, the notion of
   Layer-3 Identity to represent the communication entity uniquely helps
   in following ways.

   a.  Unique and Permanent Identity representing the entity enables
       authentication (AUTH) with the mapping and Identity services
       infrastructure.  While it is possible to do AUTH on Identifiers
       those are not permanently associated to the entity.  Moreover,
       AUTH operation is a relatively an expensive and inefficient
       procedure (compared to LOC resolution for example) and can cause
       excessive startup delays for lot of applications.

   b.  Data plane anonymization allows entities to communicate
       anonymously from the outside observers.  Identity provides de-
       anonymization for various data plane ephemeral Identifiers, if
       required, and enables resolution of which entity is behind these
       identifiers for legitimate users (entities itself in some cases).

   c.  Identity enables managing access restriction policies and
       metadata (which MAY represent type of the entity in some cases)
       regardless of which Identifier used in data plane communication
       by the entity.  Without Identity any access restrictions kept on
       Identifiers would be easily invalidated, if the peer entity
       simply changes the Identifier.

   The above requirements for having a stable network layer Identity is
   further detailed in Section 4.  Section 4 also shows how another
   abstraction of Identity from Identifiers help to enable various
   services in the data communication with in IDEAS.

3.  Identity (IDy) in IDEAS

   An Identity uniquely identifies a Communication Entity.  IDy MAY be
   unicoded or an ASCII string, which MAY have a partial structure and
   MAY be given by the provider of the IDy services.  Typically, an IDy




Chunduri, et al.         Expires January 4, 2018                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft         Identity Use Cases in IDEAS             July 2017


   SHOULD NOT be revealed unencrypted on the wire or shared with other
   entities to make IDy a private enclave.

   IDy is used for authentication of the Communication Entity 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
   with certain properties (for example not used in data plane) and with
   certain additional attributes which are common to all Identifiers 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 4) 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     |
     |                      |(private/public)  |          |(private) |
     +---------------------------------------------------------------+
              |
              +---------------------+--------------------+
              |                     |                        |
              V                     V                    V
     +------------------------+ +--------------+   +-------------------+
     |Identifier(IDf)-1 | LOC1| | IDf-2 | LOC2 |...| IDf-n| LOC1..LOCm |
     |(long-lived)            | | (ephemeral)  |   |                   |
     +------------------------+ +--------------+   +-------------------+

          MI -  Management and Security Information

         Figure 1: Identity and Identifier, Location Relationship

   Only public part of the policy, metadata (see Section 7) SHOULD be
   shared with other providers of GRIDS, for example, where the LOC
   resolution request is originated.

4.  Identity Use Cases

   Identity potentially brings value to new breed of entities connecting
   to the Internet.  The need for an Identity can be described by a few
   simple uses of the same as specified below.



Chunduri, et al.         Expires January 4, 2018                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft         Identity Use Cases in IDEAS             July 2017


4.1.  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.  Legitimate parties include
   either end of entities itself or regulatory authorities or authorized
   edge nodes (routers/IDf based firewalls) in the network.

4.2.  Unified 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 4.1), 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 Infrastructure 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.








Chunduri, et al.         Expires January 4, 2018                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft         Identity Use Cases in IDEAS             July 2017


4.2.1.  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
   Infrastructure will send a negative or empty response when it detects
   that the combination of resolution query and its initiator does not
   pass the rule validation test.  One example of this policy is,
   restriction of LOC resolution and hence allowing data traffic from
   only from the dealer/manufacturer of a vehicular node.

   Moreover, network-based access control may filter based on IDfs which
   are visible in the traffic, but this can be done in an elegant way
   through an association related to the IDy.  IDy may be looked-up 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.

4.3.  Uses of Metadata

   The GRIDS Infrastructure is envisioned to store Metadata
   (Section 1.1) and provide some search functionality.  The GRIDS
   Infrastructure 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.

4.4.  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.

   The IDy's lifecycle is inherently tied to the lifecycle of the entity
   but not with multiple Identifiers which can be added or removed.
   Hence, Identity allows separation of lifecycle of IDy to be different



Chunduri, et al.         Expires January 4, 2018                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft         Identity Use Cases in IDEAS             July 2017


   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.

4.5.  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
   GRIDS Infrastructure 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

5.  Acknowledgements

   Thanks to Padma Pillay-Esnault for so many conversations around
   Identity and its potential uses in IDEAS.  Authors would like to
   thank detailed reviews and suggestions from Dino Farinacci, Joel
   Halpern, Jeff Tantsura, Jim Guichard, Christian Huitema, Dave Meyers,
   Liu Bingyang and Yangfei.

6.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no actions for IANA.

7.  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].  The IDy policy SHOULD be
   limited in scope and only public part of the policy SHOULD be
   sharable to other GRIDS Providers.  Storage and Security of the data
   itself at the GRIDS-provider is critical.  A separate threat analysis
   for security aspects of private/public portions of the IDy data
   SHOULD be done once the architecture is evolved.

8.  References








Chunduri, et al.         Expires January 4, 2018                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft         Identity Use Cases in IDEAS             July 2017


8.1.  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>.

8.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.farinacci-lisp-eid-anonymity]
              Farinacci, D., Pillay-Esnault, P., and W. Haddad, "LISP
              EID Anonymity", draft-farinacci-lisp-eid-anonymity-02
              (work in progress), April 2017.

   [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>.

   [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








Chunduri, et al.         Expires January 4, 2018                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft         Identity Use Cases in IDEAS             July 2017


   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 January 4, 2018               [Page 10]

Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.122, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/