< draft-learmonth-pearg-safe-internet-measurement-01.txt		draft-learmonth-pearg-safe-internet-measurement-02.txt >
	Network Working Group I. Learmonth		Network Working Group I. Learmonth
	Internet-Draft Tor Project		Internet-Draft Tor Project
	Intended status: Informational December 12, 2018		Intended status: Informational May 16, 2019
	Expires: June 15, 2019		Expires: November 17, 2019
	Guidelines for Performing Safe Measurement on the Internet		Guidelines for Performing Safe Measurement on the Internet
	draft-learmonth-pearg-safe-internet-measurement-01		draft-learmonth-pearg-safe-internet-measurement-02
	Abstract		Abstract
	Researchers from industry and academia will often use Internet		Researchers from industry and academia will often use Internet
	measurements as a part of their work. While these measurements can		measurements as a part of their work. While these measurements can
	give insight into the functioning and usage of the Internet, they can		give insight into the functioning and usage of the Internet, they can
	come at the cost of user privacy. This document describes guidelines		come at the cost of user privacy. This document describes guidelines
	for ensuring that such measurements can be carried out safely.		for ensuring that such measurements can be carried out safely.
	Note		Note
	skipping to change at page 1, line 43 ¶		skipping to change at page 1, line 43 ¶
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute		Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-		working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
	Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	This Internet-Draft will expire on June 15, 2019.		This Internet-Draft will expire on November 17, 2019.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect		carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
	to this document.		to this document.
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	When performing research using the Internet, as opposed to an		When performing research using the Internet, as opposed to an
	isolated testbed or simulation platform, means that you research co-		isolated testbed or simulation platform, means that you research co-
	exists in a space with other users. This document outlines		exists in a space with other users. This document outlines
	guidelines for academic and industry researchers that might use the		guidelines for academic and industry researchers that might use the
	Internet as part of scientific experiementation.		Internet as part of scientific experiementation.
			1.1. Scope of this document
	Following the guidelines contained within this document is not a		Following the guidelines contained within this document is not a
	substitute for any institutional ethics review process you may have,		substitute for any institutional ethics review process you may have,
	although these guidelines could help to inform that process.		although these guidelines could help to inform that process.
	Similarly, these guidelines are not legal advice and local laws		Similarly, these guidelines are not legal advice and local laws must
	should be considered before starting any experiment that could have		also be considered before starting any experiment that could have
	adverse impacts on user privacy.		adverse impacts on user privacy.
	Considerations are grouped into two categories: those that primarily		1.2. Active and passive measurements
	apply to active measurements and those that primarily apply to
	passive measurements. Some of these considerations may be applicable
	to both depending on the experiment design.
	2. Active measurements		Internet measurement studies can be broadly categorized into two
			groups: active measurements and passive measurements. Active
			measurements generate traffic. Performance measurements such as TCP
			throughput testing [RFC6349] or functional measurements such as the
			feature-dependent connectivity failure tests performed by
			[PATHspider] both fall into this category. Performing passive
			measurements requires existing traffic. Passive measurements can
			help to inform new developments in Internet protocols but can also
			carry risk.
	Active measurements generate traffic. Performance measurements such		The type of measurement is not truly binary and many studies will
	as TCP throughput testing [RFC6349] or functional measurements such		include both active and passive components. Each of the
	as the feature-dependent connectivity failure tests performed by		considerations in this document must be carefully considered for
	[PATHspider] both fall into this category.		their applicability regardless of the type of measurement.
	2.1. Use a testbed		2. Consent
			Ideally, informed consent would be collected from all users of a
			shared network before measurements were performed on them. In cases
			where it is practical to do so, this should be done.
			For consent to be informed, all possible risks must be presented to
			the users. The considerations in this document can be used to
			provide a starting point although other risks may be present
			depending on the nature of the measurements to be performed.
			2.1. Proxy Consent
			In cases where it is not practical to collect informed consent from
			all users of a shared network, it may be possible to obtain proxy
			consent. Proxy consent may be given by a network operator or
			employer that would be more familiar with the expectations of users
			of a network than the researcher.
			2.2. Implied consent
			In larger scale measurements, even proxy consent collection may not
			be practical. In this case, implied consent may be presumed from
			users for some measurements. Consider that users of a network will
			have certain expectations of privacy and those expectations may not
			align with the privacy guarantees offered by the technologies they
			are using. As a thought experiment, consider how users might respond
			if you asked for their informed consent for the measurements you'd
			like to perform.
			For example, the operator of a web server that is exposed to the
			Internet hosting a popular website would have the expectation that it
			may be included in surveys that look at supported protocols or
			extensions but would not expect that attempts be made to degrade the
			service with large numbers of simultaneous connections.
			If practical, attempt to obtain informed consent or proxy consent
			from a sample of users to better understand the expectations of other
			users.
			3. Safety Considerations
			3.1. Use a testbed
	Wherever possible, use a testbed. An isolated network means that		Wherever possible, use a testbed. An isolated network means that
	there are no other users sharing the infrastructure you are using for		there are no other users sharing the infrastructure you are using for
	your experiments.		your experiments.
	When measuring performance, competing traffic can have negative		When measuring performance, competing traffic can have negative
	effects on the performance of your test traffic and so the testbed		effects on the performance of your test traffic and so the testbed
	approach can also produce more accurate and repeatable results than		approach can also produce more accurate and repeatable results than
	experiments using the public Internet.		experiments using the public Internet.
	WAN link conditions can be emulated through artificial delays and/or		WAN link conditions can be emulated through artificial delays and/or
	packet loss using a tool like [netem]. Competing traffic can also be		packet loss using a tool like [netem]. Competing traffic can also be
	emulated using traffic generators.		emulated using traffic generators.
	2.2. Only record your own traffic		3.2. Only record your own traffic
	When performing measurements be sure to only capture traffic that you		When performing measurements be sure to only capture traffic that you
	have generated. Traffic may be identified by IP ranges or by some		have generated. Traffic may be identified by IP ranges or by some
	token that is unlikely to be used by other users.		token that is unlikely to be used by other users.
	Again, this can help to improve the accuracy and repeatability of		Again, this can help to improve the accuracy and repeatability of
	your experiment. [RFC2544], for performance benchmarking, requires		your experiment. [RFC2544], for performance benchmarking, requires
	that any frames received that were not part of the test traffic are		that any frames received that were not part of the test traffic are
	discarded and not counted in the results.		discarded and not counted in the results.
	2.3. Be respectful of other's infrastructure		3.3. Be respectful of other's infrastructure
	If your experiment is designed to trigger a response from		If your experiment is designed to trigger a response from
	infrastructure that is not your own, consider what the negative		infrastructure that is not your own, consider what the negative
	consequences of that may be. At the very least your experiment will		consequences of that may be. At the very least your experiment will
	consume bandwidth that may have to be paid for.		consume bandwidth that may have to be paid for.
	In more extreme circumstances, you could cause traffic to be		In more extreme circumstances, you could cause traffic to be
	generated that causes legal trouble for the owner of that		generated that causes legal trouble for the owner of that
	infrastructure. The Internet is a global network crossing many legal		infrastructure. The Internet is a global network crossing many legal
	jurisdictions and so what may be legal for you is not necessarily		jurisdictions and so what may be legal for you is not necessarily
	legal for everyone.		legal for everyone.
	If you are sending a lot of traffic quickly, or otherwise generally		If you are sending a lot of traffic quickly, or otherwise generally
	deviate from typical client behaviour, a network may identify this as		deviate from typical client behaviour, a network may identify this as
	an attack which means that you will not be collecting results that		an attack which means that you will not be collecting results that
	are representative of what a typical client would see.		are representative of what a typical client would see.
	3. Passive measurements		3.3.1. Maintain a "Do Not Scan" list
	Performing passive measurements requires existing traffic. Passive		When performing active measurements on a shared network, maintain a
	measurements can help to inform new developments in Internet		list of hosts that you will never scan regardless of whether they
	protocols but can also carry risk.		appear in your target lists. When developing tools for performing
			active measurement, or traffic generation for use in a larger
			measurement system, ensure that the tool will support the use of a
			"Do Not Scan" list.
	3.1. Consider the expectation of privacy		If complaints are made that request you do not generate traffic
			towards a host or network, you must add that host or network to your
			"Do Not Scan" list, even if no explanation is given or the request is
			automated.
	If you are in a position to perform passive measurements of live		You may ask the requester for their reasoning if it would be useful
	network traffic, you are also in a position of responsibility. Users		to your experiment. This can also be an oppertunity to explain your
	of a network will have certain expectations of privacy and those		research and offer to share any results that may be of interest. If
	expectations may not align with the privacy guarantees offered by the		you plan to share the reasoning when publishing your measurement
	technologies they are using. As a thought experiment, consider how		results, e.g. in an academic paper, you must seek consent for this
	users might respond if you asked for their informed consent for the		from the requester.
	measurements you'd like to perform.
	3.2. Only collect data that is safe to make public		Be aware that in publishing your measurement results, it may be
			possible to infer your "Do Not Scan" list from those results. For
			example, if you measured a well-known list of popular websites then
			it would be possible to correlate the results with that list to
			determine which are missing.
			3.4. Only collect data that is safe to make public
	When deciding on the data to collect, assume that any data collected		When deciding on the data to collect, assume that any data collected
	might become public. There are many ways that this could happen,		might become public. There are many ways that this could happen,
	through operation security mistakes or compulsion by a judicial		through operation security mistakes or compulsion by a judicial
	system.		system.
	3.3. Minimization		3.5. Minimization
	For all data collected, consider whether or not it is really needed.		For all data collected, consider whether or not it is really needed.
	3.4. Aggregation		3.6. Aggregation
	When collecting data, consider if the granularity can be limited by		When collecting data, consider if the granularity can be limited by
	using bins or adding noise. XXX: Differential privacy.		using bins or adding noise. XXX: Differential privacy.
	3.5. Source Aggregation		3.7. Source Aggregation
	Do this at the source, definitely do it before you write to disk.		Do this at the source, definitely do it before you write to disk.
	[Tor.2017-04-001] presents a case-study on the in-memory statistics		[Tor.2017-04-001] presents a case-study on the in-memory statistics
	in the software used by the Tor network, as an example.		in the software used by the Tor network, as an example.
	4. Risk Analysis		4. Risk Analysis
	The benefits should outweigh the risks. Consider auxiliary data		The benefits should outweigh the risks. Consider auxiliary data
	(e.g. third-party data sets) when assessing the risks.		(e.g. third-party data sets) when assessing the risks.
	skipping to change at page 4, line 48 ¶		skipping to change at page 6, line 15 ¶
	6. IANA Considerations		6. IANA Considerations
	This document has no actions for IANA.		This document has no actions for IANA.
	7. Acknowledgements		7. Acknowledgements
	Many of these considerations are based on those from the		Many of these considerations are based on those from the
	[TorSafetyBoard] adapted and generalised to be applied to Internet		[TorSafetyBoard] adapted and generalised to be applied to Internet
	research.		research.
			Other considerations are taken from the Menlo Report [MenloReport]
			and its companion document [MenloReportCompanion].
	8. Informative References		8. Informative References
			[MenloReport]
			Dittrich, D. and E. Kenneally, "The Menlo Report: Ethical
			Principles Guiding Information and Communication
			Technology Research", August 2012,
			<https://www.caida.org/publications/papers/2012/
			menlo_report_actual_formatted/>.
			[MenloReportCompanion]
			Bailey, M., Dittrich, D., and E. Kenneally, "Applying
			Ethical Principles to Information and Communication
			Technology Research", October 2013,
			<https://www.impactcybertrust.org/link_docs/
			Menlo-Report-Companion.pdf>.
	[netem] Stephen, H., "Network emulation with NetEm", April 2005.		[netem] Stephen, H., "Network emulation with NetEm", April 2005.
	[PATHspider]		[PATHspider]
	Learmonth, I., Trammell, B., Kuehlewind, M., and G.		Learmonth, I., Trammell, B., Kuehlewind, M., and G.
	Fairhurst, "PATHspider: A tool for active measurement of		Fairhurst, "PATHspider: A tool for active measurement of
	path transparency", DOI 10.1145/2959424.2959441, July		path transparency", DOI 10.1145/2959424.2959441, July
	2016,		2016,
	<https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=2959424.2959441>.		<https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=2959424.2959441>.
	[RFC2544] Bradner, S. and J. McQuaid, "Benchmarking Methodology for		[RFC2544] Bradner, S. and J. McQuaid, "Benchmarking Methodology for
	skipping to change at page 5, line 24 ¶		skipping to change at page 7, line 7 ¶
	DOI 10.17487/RFC2544, March 1999,		DOI 10.17487/RFC2544, March 1999,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2544>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2544>.
	[RFC6349] Constantine, B., Forget, G., Geib, R., and R. Schrage,		[RFC6349] Constantine, B., Forget, G., Geib, R., and R. Schrage,
	"Framework for TCP Throughput Testing", RFC 6349,		"Framework for TCP Throughput Testing", RFC 6349,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC6349, August 2011,		DOI 10.17487/RFC6349, August 2011,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6349>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6349>.
	[Tor.2017-04-001]		[Tor.2017-04-001]
	Herm, K., "Privacy analysis of Tor's in-memory		Herm, K., "Privacy analysis of Tor's in-memory
	statistics", Tor Tech Report 2017-04-001,		statistics", Tor Tech Report 2017-04-001, April 2017,
	<https://research.torproject.org/techreports/		<https://research.torproject.org/techreports/
	privacy-in-memory-2017-04-28.pdf>.		privacy-in-memory-2017-04-28.pdf>.
	[TorSafetyBoard]		[TorSafetyBoard]
	Tor Project, "Tor Research Safety Board",		Tor Project, "Tor Research Safety Board",
	<https://research.torproject.org/safetyboard.html>.		<https://research.torproject.org/safetyboard/>.
	Author's Address		Author's Address
	Iain R. Learmonth		Iain R. Learmonth
	Tor Project		Tor Project
	Email: irl@torproject.org		Email: irl@torproject.org
End of changes. 24 change blocks.
	37 lines changed or deleted		114 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/