Subject: [ietf-privacy] Fwd: [irsg] IRSG review request draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g-07

From: Mallory Knodel <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 12:00:14 -0400

Hi all,

Just sending this here since I suggested they include a privacy 
considerations section and appear to have accepted that.

In general ICN has a privacy issue, so interested if anyone has a 
general take or links to that effect. Even a joint draft between ICNRG 
and PEARG might be a very useful contribution as caching becomes ubiquitous,

-Mallory

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	Re: [irsg] IRSG review request draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g-07
Date: 	Fri, 26 Jun 2020 11:20:23 -0400
From: 	Mallory Knodel <[email-masked]>
To: 	Colin Perkins <[email-masked]>
CC: 	[email-masked], [email-masked]

Hi everyone,

On behalf of the IRSG I reviewed this draft. I have two main points and 
a general observation that some sections will require extensive copy 
editing by the RFC Editor, which would be nice to avoid by the authors 
providing that if another version is imminent anyway. My two main points 
relate to privacy and references.

Generally it seems that privacy trade offs from IP to ICN, even in 
IPoICN, aren't made explicit and I wonder as well if the mere existence 
of the transport convergence layer, even when useless for IP to IP, 
isn't of concern. As noted in RFC 7945, ICN as an architecture trades 
privacy for efficiency, where "The activity of users is significantly 
more exposed to the scrutiny of cache owners..." In the conclusion 
lawful intercept is mentioned, which I imagine would be expedited by the 
TCL even for IP to IP. Wondering if I could convince you to introduce a 
privacy considerations section that states plainly the trade off and the 
risks of this architecture, even for native IP.

On references, there are a few points:

  * point-h2020.eu appears to no longer be a functional domain.

  * I'm unable to dig into IPoICN because the IEEE paper referenced is 
inaccessible without a subscription-- I couldn't even buy it, though I 
tried. It's possible another link, or another publication, even if 
paywalled might be better.

  * HICN reference, the draft is now in version -04 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-muscariello-intarea-hicn/

  * Similarly ICN5G is now in -04 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ravi-icnrg-5gc-icn/

  * And ICNLOWPAN is now -08 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-icnrg-icnlowpan/

  * The NGMN citation link is incorrect or broken, but it appears there 
is a PDF of this publication online, the integrity of which I can't verify.

-Mallory

On 6/23/20 11:11 AM, Colin Perkins wrote:
> IRSG members,
>
> The ICNRG Research Group has requested that 
> draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g-07 
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g/> be 
> considered for publication as an IRTF RFC. To progress this draft, we 
> now need *at least one* IRSG member to volunteer to provide a detailed 
> review of the draft, as follows:
>
>> The purpose of the IRSG review is to ensure consistent editorial and 
>> technical quality for IRTF publications. IRSG review is not a deep 
>> technical review. (This should take place within the RG.) At least 
>> one IRSG member other than the chair of the RG bringing the work 
>> forth must review the document and the RG’s editorial process.
>>
>> IRSG reviewers should look for clear, cogent, and consistent writing. 
>> An important aspect of the review is to gain a critical reading from 
>> reviewers who are not subject matter experts and, in the process, 
>> assure the document will be accessible to those beyond the authoring 
>> research group. Also, reviewers should assess whether sufficient 
>> editorial and technical review has been conducted and the 
>> requirements for publication described in RFC 5743  have been 
>> met. Finally, reviewers should check that appropriate citations to 
>> related research literature have been made.
>>
>> Reviews should be written to be public. Review comments should be 
>> sent to the IRSG and RG mailing lists and entered into the tracker. 
>> All IRSG review comments must be addressed. However, the RG need not 
>> accept every comment. It is the responsibility of the shepherd to 
>> understand the comments and ensure that the RG considers them 
>> including adequate dialog between the reviewer and the author and/or 
>> RG. Reviews and their resolution should be entered into the tracker 
>> by the document shepherd.
>>
>> The IRSG review often results in the document being revised. Once the 
>> reviewer(s), authors, and shepherd have converged on review comments, 
>> the shepherd starts the IRSG Poll on whether the document should be 
>> published.
>
> Please respond to this message if you’re able to perform such a 
> review, and indicate the approximate time-frame by which you’ll be 
> able to complete it. The document shepherd write-up is available at 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g/shepherdwriteup/ 
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g/shepherdwriteup/> 
>
>
> Thanks!
> Colin

-- 
Mallory Knodel
CTO, Center for Democracy and Technology
gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780