Internet DRAFT - draft-padma-ideas-req-grids
draft-padma-ideas-req-grids
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]