Subject: [Madinas] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on charter-ietf-madinas-00-01: (with COMMENT)

From: Alvaro Retana via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2021 11:46:27 -0700

Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-madinas-00-01: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-madinas/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) I am glad that this work is being done, but there's a disconnect, at least
for me, between the main text of the charter and the deliverables.  IOW, it is
unclear what this WG will produce and how the actions in the charter map to the
documents.  To be explicit:

(a)
   The MADINAS Working Group will examine the effect of RCM schemes on
   network and application services in several scenarios identified as
   relevant.

What should "examine the effect" result in?  For which scenarios?  I can see
how this item can result in both use cases (scenarios) and a current
state-of-affairs document on MAC randomization (examine the effect).  Is that
the intent?

(b)
   The group will also evaluate various identifiers (i.e., beyond the MAC
   address) that can be used by the network to provide services...

This part sounds like a solution: the identifiers can be used by the network.
But, where will these identifiers come from?  Other IETF WGs?  What will be the
result of the evaluation?

(c)
   The group will also evaluate...as well as scenarios where personal device
   identity is not required.

This is the second part of the sentence in (2).  There doesn't seem to be a
clear relationship between identifiers and scenarios (feels like comparing
apples and oranges).  What will be the result of this evaluation?

(d)
   For scenarios where personal device identity stability is desirable, the
   Working Group will recommend protocols that can be used to protect the
   request and exchange of identifiers between the client and the service
   provider. ... The MADINAS Working Group will examine other IETF work that
   may be applicable.

It is not clear whether the recommended protocols will come only from a set of
existing IETF work or if the WG can develop new ones. Also, where will the
recommendations be documented?

(e)
   For scenarios where privacy is paramount, the group will recommend best
   practices to ensure that the privacy achieved with RCM is not compromised
   by the communication of other identifiers.

It sounds like this might match the BCP document...but only for some scenarios?

(2) Personally, I believe it is not a good idea to mention specific documents
(even as examples) as the eventual WG may decide to go in a different direction.