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

Versions: 00 01

Network Working Group                                  P. Pillay-Esnault
Internet-Draft                                                  A. Clemm
Intended status: Informational                                    Huawei
Expires: January 4, 2018                                    D. Farinacci
                                                             lispers.net
                                                                D. Meyer
                                                                 Brocade
                                                            July 3, 2017


Requirements for Generic Identity Services in Identity Enabled Networks
                     draft-padma-ideas-req-grids-01

Abstract

   This document describes requirements for the Generic Identity
   Services infrastructure for Identity-Enabled Networks.

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.

   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




Pillay-Esnault, et al.   Expires January 4, 2018                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                                                 July 2017


   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Specification of Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Background  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Requirements for Generic Identity Services (GRIDS)  . . . . .   6
     5.1.  Mapping Services  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.2.  Identity Services and Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.3.  Subscription Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     5.4.  Metadata Support and Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     5.5.  Distribution and Redundancy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     5.6.  Scale and Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     5.7.  GRIDS Security  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     5.8.  Ability to support multiple instances . . . . . . . . . .  14
     5.9.  GRIDS Extensions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   8.  Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   9.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17

1.  Introduction

   This document specifies requirements for Generic Identity Services
   (GRIDS) that provide a cornerstone of Identity-Enabled Networks.
   GRIDS includes services to maintain mappings between Identifiers and
   Locators and to resolve mappings by Identifier.  In addition, GRIDS
   includes services to manage the lifecycle of Identifiers as used in
   an Identity-Enabled Network, specifically services to register
   Identifiers.

   There are additional services that GRIDS can be extended with.
   Examples include services to maintain metadata about endpoints that
   are referenced by Identifiers as well as support for Identity-based
   network access control.  Because those services enable a lot of
   value-added functionality, important requirements for those services
   are specified here as well.  In order to not overburden GRIDS
   development, this document focuses on core requirements.

   The requirements are rooted in and derived from the problem statement
   [IDEAS-PS] and use case documents [IDEAS-USE][IDEAS-IDENTITY] for



Pillay-Esnault, et al.   Expires January 4, 2018                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                                                 July 2017


   Identity Enabled Networks.  A gap analysis of existing solutions can
   be found in [IDEAS-GAP].

2.  Specification of Requirements

   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].

3.  Definition of Terms

   This document makes use of terms which for the most part have been
   already defined in the problem statement draft of IDEAS [IDEAS-PS].
   They are included here for reader convenience.  In case of any
   discrepancies between the two drafts, the problem statement draft
   overrides.

   o  Entity : An entity is a communication endpoint.  It can be a
      device, a node, or a (software) process, that needs to be
      identified.  An entity may have one or multiple Identifiers
      simultaneously.  An entity is reached by the resolution of one or
      more of its Identifiers to one or more Locators.

   o  Entity Collection: A set of entities with its own Identifier,
      e.g., a multicast group, or an ad-hoc vehicular network that needs
      to be uniquely identified (e.g., a train entity may represent a
      Closed User Group (CUG) and may contain all the passengers'
      devices that share the same fate for connectivity).

   o  Generic Identity Services (GRIDS): GRIDS is a set of services to
      manage the lifecycle of IDs, to map and resolve Identifiers and
      Locators, and to associate metadata (META) with entities and
      entity collections.  It is a distributed system that stores the
      ID, the associated LOC(s), and metadata (META) in the form of
      tuples (ID, LOC, and META).

   o  GRIDS-IS (GRIDS Identity Services): The subset of GRIDS that is
      responsible for managin the lifecycle of Identifiers and
      Identities.

   o  GRIDS-MS (GRIDS Mapping Services): The subset of GRIDS that is
      responsible for mapping and resolving Identifiers and Locators.

   o  GRIDS-SS (GRIDS Subscription Services): The subset of GRIDS that
      lets clients subscribe to information updates.

   o  Identifier (IDf): denotes information to unambiguously identify an
      entity within a given scope.  There is no constraint on the



Pillay-Esnault, et al.   Expires January 4, 2018                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                                                 July 2017


      format, obfuscation or routability of an IDf.  The IDf may or may
      not be present in the packet whose format is defined by ID-based
      protocols.

   o  Identifier-based (ID-based): When an entity is only reachable
      through one or more communication access then a protocol or a
      solution is said to be ID-based if it uses an ID-LOC decoupling
      and a mapping system (MS) as base components of the architecture.

   o  Identity (IDy): the essence of "being" of a specific entity.  An
      Identity is not to be confused with an Identifier: while an
      Identifier may be used to refer to an entity, an Identifier's
      lifecycle is not necessarily tied to the lifecycle of the Identity
      it is referencing.  On the other hand, the Identity's lifecycle is
      inherently tied to the lifecycle of the entity itself.

   o  Identity-capable (ID-capable): An application is said to be ID-
      capable if it makes use of an Identifier of an entity to establish
      communication.  For example, an application that initiates its
      sessions using an ID.  An application may use an IP-address as a
      proxy for an ID if the network resolves this ambiguity.  We regard
      such an application as being ID-capable.

   o  IDentity Enabled Networks (IDEAS): IDEAS are networks that support
      the Identifier/Locator decoupling.  Reaching an entity is achieved
      by the resolution of Identifier(s) to Locator(s).

   o  Locator (LOC): denotes information that is topology-dependent and
      which is used to forward packets to a given entity attached to a
      network.  An entity can be reached using one or multiple Locators;
      these Locators may have a limited validity lifetime.

   o  Metadata (META): Metadata is data about an Identity.  The metadata
      may contain information such as the nature of the entity for
      example.

   o  Scope: denotes the domain of applicability or usability of an ID.
      A scope may be limited (e.g., considered local with geographic
      proximity, or private within an administrative domain) or be
      global.

   o  User Equipment (UE): A user equipment is an entity per definition
      in [IDEAS-PS]








Pillay-Esnault, et al.   Expires January 4, 2018                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                                                 July 2017


4.  Background

   Identity-Enabled Networks introduce the concept of Identity into
   networking.  This concept includes an Identity/Identifier split,
   which complements existing Locator/Identifier separation
   technologies.

   Identity-Enabled Networks are enabled by a set of core services that
   are provided by common control infrastructure.  Both the services and
   the infrastructure that provides them are referred to as GRIDS,
   GeneRic IDentity Services.  GRIDS comprises several key components.
   Those components include the following:

   o  GRIDS-MS (Mapping Services) provides services to maintain and
      resolve mappings between Identifiers and Locators.

   o  GRIDS-IS (Identity and Identifier Services) provides services to
      register Identifiers and maintain bindings between Identifiers and
      Identities, as we well as manage their overall lifecycle.

   o  GRIDS-SS (Subscription Services) provides services that let
      clients subscribe to updates regarding mappings and Identifiers
      that they are interested in.

   o  GRIDS-Meta (Metadata Services) provides services to manage
      metadata about Identities and Identifiers.

   The requirements defined in this document do not imply a particular
   solution.  Specifically, they do not imply that infrastructure used
   to address those requirements would need to be defined or built from
   scratch.  Instead, where possible, existing technologies, components,
   and services will be used to address the requirements defined in this
   document.  Also, it should be noted that it is possible to introduce
   additional components that provide value-added functions.  One
   example would be Grouping Services that support groupings of entities
   and include mechanisms needed to manage Entity Groups.

   In the following, requirements are denoted by REQ-xx=n, where "xx"
   refers to a specific requirements section and "n" refers to the
   number of the requirement.  In some cases, optional requirements are
   specified and designated as OPT-xx-n.  Non-requirements (i.e. aspects
   that might be considered candidates for requirements, but that are
   specifically not required to be supported at this point for various
   reasons) are designated as NON-REQ-xx-n.







Pillay-Esnault, et al.   Expires January 4, 2018                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                                                 July 2017


5.  Requirements for Generic Identity Services (GRIDS)

5.1.  Mapping Services

   REQ-MS-10: GRIDS-MS needs to maintain mappings between Identifiers
   and Locators.

   REQ-MS-20: GRIDS-MS needs to provide services that allow clients to
   resolve a Locator for a given Identifier.

   REQ-MS-30: GRIDS-MS MUST be able to support different models for
   authoritative mapping ownership, authorizing only the legitimate
   owner (or an entity acting on the owner's behalf) to update mapping
   data.  Specifically, GRIDS-MS MUST be able to support (1) a model in
   which clients of a certain Identity can update mapping data for their
   Identifier, and (2) a model in which clients with a certain Locator
   can update mapping data with that Locator.

   REQ-MS-40: GRIDS-MS MUST be able to support policy-based
   authorization for access to mapping services and to mapping
   information that is associated with specific Identities.
   Authorization MUST be provided on the basis of the client's identity
   that is accessing the service, or (in the case of an intermediary
   client such as a tunnel gateway) on whose behalf the service is being
   accessed.

   Not every client will be entitled to every piece of mapping
   information.  This allows GRIDS to be set up such that information is
   only available on a "need-to-know" basis to clients, facilitating the
   protection of private information for systems involved.

5.2.  Identity Services and Identifiers

   REQ-IS-10: GRIDS MUST support IDfs and IDys with the following
   characteristics

   o  Variable length ID

   o  Fixed length

   o  Structured

   o  Unstructured

   REQ-IS-20: GRIDS MUST provide proper separation between the concepts
   of "Identity" and "Identifier".





Pillay-Esnault, et al.   Expires January 4, 2018                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                                                 July 2017


   An Identity is synonymous to the being of an entity that can
   communicate in an Identity-Enabled Network.  Identity information
   needs to be strongly secured and is generally kept private.  Identity
   is represented by a special type of Identifier that is not expected
   to ever be exposed over-the-wire in regular data plane communications
   in the network.  An Identifier, on the other hand, is a reference to
   an Identity respectively associated Entity.  An Identifier will in
   generally be public and constitutes how an Identity will be known to
   others, including other Entities that wish to communicate with the
   Entity designated by the Identifier.  Identifiers MAY also be
   included in data plane packets.

   An Identity can be associated with multiple Identifiers.  It should
   be noted that Locators are associated with Identifiers, not Identity.

   An Identity does require a representation itself, which resembles in
   effect a "special" Identifier.  Therefore, one question that is often
   asked concerns how Identifier and Identity really differ.  One way in
   which to asnwer is that a regular Identifier always refers to another
   Identifier, whereas the Identity does not.  In that sense, the
   Identity constitutes the root of a "tree" (generally flat with one
   level of hierarchy only, but not precluding multiple levels) of
   Identifiers that all belong to and reference the same Identity.

   REQ-IS-30: GRIDS MUST support IDfs that refer to User Endpoints of a
   given Identity.

   REQ-IS-40: GRIDS MUST support a model in which multiple Identifiers
   can be associated with the same Identity.  GRIDS-IS MUST NOT have
   inherent limitations with regards to the number of Identifiers that
   may be simultaneously associated with the same Identity.

   REQ-IS-50: GRIDS-IS MUST support the secure registration of new
   Identities.

   "Secure" refers to mechanisms such as strong encryption and mutual
   authentication.

   REQ-IS-60: GRIDS-IS MUST support the secure unregistration /
   revocation of an Identity

   REQ-IS-70: GRIDS-IS MUST support the registration of new Identifiers
   (independent of registration of the associated Identity)

   REQ-IS-80: GRIDS-IS MUST support the unregistration / revocation of
   Identifiers (independent of unregistration of the associated
   Identity)




Pillay-Esnault, et al.   Expires January 4, 2018                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                                                 July 2017


   REQ-IS-90: GRIDS MUST allow for the possibility to support other IDs
   (i.e.  IDs not tied to the Identity of a User Endpoint) in the
   future, such as Group IDs.

   REQ-IS-100: GRIDS-IS MUST support a model in which Identifiers are
   registered by a client representing the Identity that the IDf is
   associated with (e.g., a User Endpoint).  GRIDS-IS MUST provide
   mechanisms that prevent usage of identifiers in ways that result in
   amgibuities with regards to determining an Identifier's associated
   Identity.  To this end, GRIDS-IS MUST either prevent duplicate
   assignment of IDfs, specifically assignment of the same IDf to
   multiple Identities, or in case duplicate assignment occurs, ensure
   that an IDf's associated Identity is clear depending on the context,
   such as a local scope.

   It is to be determined whether GRIDS-IS should prevent recycling of
   IDfs that had been assigned previously, even if since unregistered,
   or if it should provide a warning when such an IDf is reassigned.

   REQ-IS-110: GRIDS-IS MUST support a model in which Identifiers are
   assigned and registered by an authority.

   REQ-IS-120: GRIDS-IS MUST support the notion of an Identifier
   preference, providing a service that allows a client to resolve which
   Identifier it should when directing communication at a given
   destination.  The Identifier used can be simply the same Identfier
   used by the client to refer to the destination in the resolution
   request, or it can be an alternative Identifier, such as an ephemeral
   Identifier.  This capability SHOULD be provided in a manner that is
   integrated with GRIDS-MS, combining the resolution of Identifier with
   Locator information.

   Such a capability is useful to enable anonymization of communciation
   traffic by obfuscating identifiers.  For example, a client could
   request a Locator for a given, well-known Identifier for a
   destination, such as an Identifier listed in a public directory.
   GRIDS could indicate to not use the well-known Identifier, but (for
   example) an ephemeral Identifier instead, returned (for example)
   together with a Locator in response to a mapping resolution request.

   REQ-IS-130: GRIDS-IS MUST be able to support different models for
   authoritative ownership of Identifier preferences, authorizing only
   the legitimate owner (or an entity acting on the owner's behalf) to
   update preference data.  Specifically, GRIDS-IS MUST be able to
   support a model in which clients of a given Identity can update their
   own Identity preference data.





Pillay-Esnault, et al.   Expires January 4, 2018                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                                                 July 2017


5.3.  Subscription Services

   REQ-SS-10: GRIDS-SS MUST allow clients to subscribe to updates for
   information that they are entitled to resolve.  Specifically, GRIDS-
   SS MUST provide support for pushing updates about Locators for
   mappings that are of interest to a client with minimal incurred
   delay.  GRIDS-SS MUST also provide suppport for pushing updates about
   preferred Identifiers of entities to whose mapping information the
   client is subscribed to.

5.4.  Metadata Support and Services

   Metadata can be tremendously useful for Identity-Enabled Networks, as
   indicated in both Problem Statement and Use Cases.  Therefore, GRIDS
   SHOULD support Metadata Services (GRIDS-Meta) that allow to store and
   retrieve certain metadata associated with Identities, as well as
   metadata associated with Identifiers.  The metadata supported has
   several properties in common:

   o  It is slow changing and does not impose significant requirements
      with regards to update rates that would have to be supported

   o  It does not impose significant requirements with regards to
      latency of propagation of updates

   o  It is low in size and volume

   GRIDS-Meta will have to support requirements that include the
   following:

   o  Req-Meta-10: When GRIDS-Meta is supported, it MUST provide support
      for associating metadata with a given Identity.  An example of
      metadata associated with an Identity is the type of endpoint (e.g.
      a mobile device, an IoT device, or a compute server).

   o  Req-Meta-20: When GRIDS-Meta is supported, it MUST provide support
      for associating metadata with a given Identifier (that is not
      automatically associated with other Identifiers that belong to the
      same Identity).  An example of metadata associated with an
      Identifier would be information about which Groupings the
      Identifier belongs to, or whether the Identifier is considered a
      publicly known Identifier that should, for example, be listed in a
      public directory.

   o  Req-Meta-30: When GRIDS-Meta is supported, it MUST provide support
      that allows a client to retrieve metadata for an Entity as
      identified by a given Identifier.  The retrieved metadata should
      include both metadata associated with the particular Identifier,



Pillay-Esnault, et al.   Expires January 4, 2018                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                                                 July 2017


      and metadata associated with the Identity that is referred to by
      the Identifier.

   o  Req-Meta-50: GRIDS-Meta MUST support for differentiation between
      public metadata that is generally accessible and can be shared
      across GRIDS boundaries, and private metadata that is accessible
      only on a need-to-know basis.

   o  Example of private metadata includes any metadata that ties an
      identity to personal information (such as customer data regarding
      the real-world owner of a communications entity.)  Example of
      public metadata includes metadata such as the type of endpoint
      (e.g. a mobile device, an IoT device, a compute server), or which
      Identifier constitutes a publicly known Identfier that should be
      listed in publicly accessible directories.

   o  Req-Meta-60: When GRIDS-Meta is supported, it MUST support a
      notion of ownership of metadata, and give the owner of the
      metadata full control over security rules that guide who can
      access that metadata.

   o  Req-Meta-70: When GRIDS-Meta is supported, it MUST support the
      definition and enforcement of security policies that guide who is
      authorized to retrieve metadata, and who is authorized to modify
      metadata.

5.5.  Distribution and Redundancy

   REQ-DR-10: GRIDS MUST be robust and very highly available.

   REQ-DR-20: Any maintenance or upgrades to GRIDS MUST NOT affect
   availability of GRIDS services.

   REQ-DR-30: GRIDS MUST support implementation using a distributed and
   redundant architecture.  Specifically, failure of individual
   components MUST NOT bring down GRIDS as a whole.

   As this is a requirements document, this document does not mandate a
   particular implementation architecture.  That said, it should be
   noted that for any mapping system to be successful, it will need to
   be robust, distributed and provide redundancy.  The mapping system
   design and architecture must avoid being single points of failure and
   MUST enforce resiliency.

   Furthermore, it should be noted that the format of the Identifier may
   or may not play a role in how any underlying servers used to
   implement GRIDS might be distributed.  It is conceivable that such




Pillay-Esnault, et al.   Expires January 4, 2018               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                                                 July 2017


   distribution and placement of GRIDS components and data maintained by
   GRIDS will be affected by usage patterns.

5.6.  Scale and Performance

   REQ-SP-10: GRIDS MUST support very large (Internet-level) scale.

   It is anticipated that GRIDS MUST be able to handle from the start
   billions of distinct Identifiers and mapping entries and allow for
   substatiantial future growth.  While this document makes no
   statements about GRIDS architecture, it should be noted that GRIDS
   will likely not be provided by monolithic infrastructure but by means
   of multiple distributed and interconnected components.

   REQ-SP-20: GRIDS MUST scale in a way such that increases in the
   number of Identifiers and mapping entries do not negatively degrade
   performance.  Performance characteristics SHOULD be independent of
   scale.  If such constant scale performance characteristics cannot be
   provided, performance MUST NOT degrade in worse than logarithmic
   manner based on the number of Entities.

   REQ-SP-30: A characterization of GRIDS performance at scale, as well
   as associated GRIDS performance objectives, MUST include the
   following parameters:

   o  TR: Time to resolve a Locator by Identifier, in three variants to
      characterize normal case, performance determinism, and "bottom
      case" behavior:

      *  mean

      *  variation

      *  bottom percentile

   o  TM: Time to update a mapping entry (i.e. time until mapping entry
      first registers with GRIDS), in three variants to characterize
      normal case, performance determinism, and "bottom case" behavior:

      *  mean

      *  variation

      *  bottom percentile

   o  TS: Time for mapping entry update to propagate to subscribers of a
      given mapping (i.e. clients who are subscribed to be notified of
      mapping updates of a given Identifier), in three variants to



Pillay-Esnault, et al.   Expires January 4, 2018               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft                                                 July 2017


      characterize normal case, performance determinism, and "bottom
      case" behavior:

      *  mean

      *  variation

      *  bottom percentile

   o  SRT: Sustained resolution throughput for resolution requests, in
      multiple variants to distinguish overall throughput and throughput
      as perceived by individual clients:

      *  overall

      *  for individual client

   o  SRM: Sustained mapping update throughput, in multiple variants to
      distinguish overall throughput and throughput as perceived by
      individual clients:

      *  overall

      *  for individual client

   REQ-SP-40: Characterization of performance MUST furthermore include
   information on scale at which the performance numbers are observed,
   such as number of Identifiers.

   It is acknowledged that specific implementations may differ in terms
   of performance characteristics they can accomplish.  Specific
   performance objectives against these parameters MAY be articulated at
   a later point.  It is possible that such objectives will depend on
   the use case and that such use cases could result in specific
   qualification requirements imposed on GRIDS implementations for
   particular deployment scenarios.  Furthermore, it is acknowledged
   that additional performance parameters can be articulated in addition
   to the ones specified here.

   It should be noted that this document does not mandate a particular
   implementation architecture.  However, in order to be able to meet
   the ambitious performance and scale requirements imposed by GRIDS, we
   note that an architecture that leverages principles of distribution,
   hierarchy, and aggregation may help to achieve these goals.
   Specifically, we note that in order to meet low latency goals,
   architectural considerations SHOULD include support for predictive
   and proactive dissemination and caching of data to locations that are
   close to clients that need to consume and interact with it.



Pillay-Esnault, et al.   Expires January 4, 2018               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft                                                 July 2017


   Conceivably, this may also involve application of data analytics and
   machine learning techniques.

5.7.  GRIDS Security

   REQ-SEC-10: GRIDS needs to be robust against direct and indirect
   attacks.  If any component of GRIDS is attacked, the system needs to
   degrade gracefully.

   REQ-SEC-20: GRIDS The addition and removal of components of the
   mapping system must be performed in a secure matter so as to not
   violate the integrity and operation of the system and service it
   provides.

   REQ-SEC-30: GRIDS MUST authorize any requests directed at it.  This
   includes requests that alter data maintained by GRIDS, as well as
   requests to retrieve data from GRIDS.

   REQ-SEC-40: GRIDS MUST authenticate clients.

   REQ-SEC-50: GRIDS MUST support some sort of audit trails.
   Specifically, GRIDS SHOULD log any requests being served and retain
   such logs, themselves properly secured, for a minimum (to-be-
   determined) time interval.  In addition, GRIDS SHOULD at a minimum
   support per-client statistics (such as counter and rate information
   about resolution requests) and per-Identifier statistics (such as
   counters for accesses involving a specific Identifier).

   REQ-SEC-60: Any Identity information MUST be encrypted.
   Specifically, Identity information MUST NOT (i.e., must never) be
   transmitted in the clear between GRIDS and a client.  (Note the
   distinction between "Identity" and "Identifier".  While Identity
   information MUST be protected and highly security sensitive, the same
   stringent requirements generally do not apply to Identifiers.)

   In addition, Identity information MUST NOT be included in dataplane
   communications.

   OPT-SEC-70: Encryption of GRIDS messages is optional.  Specifically,
   it is optional to provide confidentiality of the requesters and the
   information they are requesting.  (Note the exception regarding
   Identity information; Identity information MUST always be encrypted).

   REQ-SEC-80: GRIDS MUST support cryptographic signing of information
   that it provides to allow clients to verify if the provided
   information is authentic.





Pillay-Esnault, et al.   Expires January 4, 2018               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft                                                 July 2017


   REQ-SEC-90: GRIDS MUST support message rate-limiting and other
   heuristics must be part of the foundational support of the mapping
   system to protect GRIDS from sudden overloaded conditions and
   mitigate the effects of potential attacks.

5.8.  Ability to support multiple instances

   REQ-MI-10: GRIDS SHOULD be deployable in a private space and provide
   data isolation.  For example, GRIDS MUST NOT require a company to
   expose all of its IDf as public IDfs if the company does not wish to
   do so.

   Because Identifiers are unique only within a given GRIDS instance, it
   should be noted that by using multiple isolated instances of GRIDS,
   it is conceivable that overlapping IDfs can be supported.  However
   this is not encouraged.  One way in which this can be avoided is by
   by allocating private ranges for experimental use in the IDf name
   space, and requiring GRIDS to not assign any IDfs in an allocated
   Identifier space.

   REQ-MI-20: GRIDS MUST support a distinction between "private" GRIDS
   data that is refined in scope to a given GRIDS instance, and "public"
   GRIDS data whose scope can be global.  Specifically, private GRIDS
   data MUST NOT be shared beyond GRIDS boundaries, whereas public GRIDS
   data can be (and may have to be) shared across multiple GRIDS
   instances.

   For example, some metadata may be private, such as metadata tieing an
   identity to personal information (such as customer data regarding the
   real-world owner of a communications entity.)  Other metadata may be
   public, such as the type of endpoint (e.g. a mobile device, an IoT
   device, a compute server) that is associated with an entity.
   Likewise, the list of Identifiers that are in use or "claimed"
   constitute public GRIDS data (but not who those Identifiers are
   assigned to).

5.9.  GRIDS Extensions

   GRIDS MUST be designed in such a way to allow future extensions and
   services.

   An example of a future extension concerns grouping services,
   involving Group IDs that represent groupings of User Endpoints.
   There are multiple applications as well as multiple types of
   groupings, for example administrative groupings (used to facilitate
   management), groupings that represent collections of User Endpoints
   that temporarily or permanently share the same fate (such as devices
   in the same railroad car that all use a communications gateway with



Pillay-Esnault, et al.   Expires January 4, 2018               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft                                                 July 2017


   the same locator), and groupings that represent multihomed endpoints
   (which include endpoints that mutually protect each other in case of
   failures).

   The following are examples of requirements that GRIDS will have to
   support if grouping is to be supported as a feature.  It should be
   noted the following list is incomplete, merely indicative of the
   types of requirements that will be associated with providing Grouping
   Services:

   o  GRIDS SHOULD support group identifiers, used to designate
      groupings of endpoints.

   o  GRIDS SHOULD support Group ID (G-ID) Management Services: Adding
      and removing identifiers from the group, as well as querying group
      members.

   o  GRIDS SHOULD support a type of group used to designate a group of
      endpoints that share the same fate, i.e. that are (temporarily or
      permanently) assoicated with the same Locator.  GRIDS Grouping
      Services SHALL integrated with GRIDS-MS in such a way that for an
      Identifier that is part of a group, the Locator of the Group takes
      precedence over (or determines) the Identfier's "native" Locator
      (which it would be associated with, if not part of the group).

6.  Security Considerations

   Due to the sensitivity of Identity tied to Identifier and location
   data there is a need to pay attention to security ramifications.  In
   particular, the security goals should include confidentiality,
   possible encryption for integrity of sensitive data and privacy.

7.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no actions for IANA.

8.  Contributors

   This present document is based on an extract of the first version of
   the draft.  The authors and their affiliations on the original
   document are: D.  Farinacci (lispers.net), D.  Meyer (Brocade), D.
   Lake (Cisco Systems), T.  Herbert (Facebook), M.  Menth (University
   of Tuebingen), Dipenkar Raychaudhuri (Rutgers University), Julius
   Mueller (ATT) and Padma Pillay-Esnault (Huawei).

   There are two companion documents that were extracted from the -00
   version of this document: Problem Statement in IDEAS [IDEAS-PS] and
   GRIDS Requirements [IDEAS-USE] which regroups all the authors above.



Pillay-Esnault, et al.   Expires January 4, 2018               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft                                                 July 2017


   Uma Chunduri

   Yingzhen Qu

   Rutgers University: Parishad Karimi and Shreyasee Mukherjee

9.  Acknowledgments

   This document was produced using Marshall Rose's xml2rfc tool.

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [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>.

10.2.  Informative References

   [IDEAS-GAP]
              Qu, Y., Caballos, A., Moskowitz, R., Liu, B., and A.
              Stockmayer, "Gap Analysis for Identity Enabled Networks",
              July 2017, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xyz-ideas-
              gap-analysis-00/>.

   [IDEAS-IDENTITY]
              Chunduri, U., Clemm, A., and M. Menth, "Identity Use Cases
              in IDEAS", June 2017, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-
              ccm-ideas-identity-use-cases-00/>.

   [IDEAS-PS]
              Pillay-Esnault, P., Boucadair, M., Jacquenet, C.,
              Fioccola, G., and A. Nennker, "Problem Statement for
              Identity Enabled Networks", July 2017,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-padma-ideas-
              problem-statement/>.

   [IDEAS-USE]
              Pillay-Esnault, P., Farinacci, D., Herbert, T., Jacquenet,
              C., Lake, D., Menth, M., Meyer, D., and D. Raychaudhuri,
              "Use Cases for Identity Enabled Networks", July 2017,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-padma-ideas-use-
              cases-01/>.






Pillay-Esnault, et al.   Expires January 4, 2018               [Page 16]


Internet-Draft                                                 July 2017


Authors' Addresses

   Padma Pillay-Esnault
   Huawei
   2330 Central Expressway
   Santa Clara,  CA 95050
   USA

   Email: padma.ietf@gmail.com


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

   Email: ludwig@clemm.org


   Dino Farinacci
   lispers.net
   San Jose  California
   USA

   Email: farinacci@gmail.com


   Dave Meyer
   Brocade

   Email: dmm@1-4-5.net



















Pillay-Esnault, et al.   Expires January 4, 2018               [Page 17]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.126, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/