Subject: [Madinas] MADINAS 2nd BoF at IETF-110 ?

From: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2020 20:45:24 +0000

After a good first BoF, I wonder whether the MADINAS participants (and especially the chairs and presenters of the first BoF) want to have a 2nd BoF that could potentially be WG forming.

See https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/important-dates/ for the dates

And https://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki#TimeframeIETF110Online

Hope it helps

-éric

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2020 15:56:07 -0500

Eric Vyncke \(evyncke\) <evyncke=[email-masked]> wrote:
    > After a good first BoF, I wonder whether the MADINAS participants (and
    > especially the chairs and presenters of the first BoF) want to have a
    > 2nd BoF that could potentially be WG forming.

I don't know what problem the *IETF* can fix with a protocol and/or document.
I mostly heard:
    Patient: "Doctor! Doctor! It hurts when I identify mis-behaving devices by MAC
         address, and then they change address"

To which I'd reply:
    Doctor: maybe you shouldn't do that.  Malicious devices could change
         address before mac address randomization.

I could certainly write a BCP, but I can't make products ship existing
protocols that deal with the problem.

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

---

From: Juan Carlos Zuniga <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2020 17:17:34 -0500

One of the actions we recorded was to include the latest work from WBA
(e.g. OpenRoaming, Wi-Fi identification paper, etc.) as background and
potential solution to some of the problems presented at the MADINAS BoF.

We reached out to the WBA and they are planning to share and potentially
present in MADINAS their current and future activities in this area.

Also, there might be some coordination required between IETF and IEEE
regarding 802.11bh and 802.11bi.

Seems to me that it would be beneficial to plan for a second BoF, although
I'm still not clear if it would need to be a WG forming or not.

Best,

Juan-Carlos

On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 3:45 PM Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyncke=
[email-masked]> wrote:

> especially the chairs and presenters of the first BoF) want to have a 2nd
> BoF that could potentially be WG forming.
>
>
>
> Madinas mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/madinas
>

---

From: "Jerome Henry (jerhenry)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2020 19:48:29 +0000

A BCP, with a clear set of use cases, would go a long way imho.
It seems that each time this topic come, we hear "oh we can authenticate you even if you rotate your MAC", but the problem seems to be a bit more subtle (who is 'we', the access network? An undifferentiated series of services behind the access network? In what setting (public space? Enterprise? For how long is that authentication supposed to be valid [which is the crux of course]? Then, who is 'you'? The device? The user? From each of these conditions, the answer may be different. But when all these keep being mixed up in a general bath, confusion persists.
Glad to contribute if you are up to it.

Jerome 

On 12/10/20, 3:56 PM, "Madinas on behalf of Michael Richardson" <[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:

    To which I'd reply:

---

From: Juan Carlos Zuniga <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2020 18:31:42 -0500

I agree that we need more clarification regarding:

1- the purpose of the identification and associated problems (e.g. if it
does not take place),
2- the actors, and
3- the potential (existing or not) solutions.

The fact that MAC addresses are being used today as identifiers is perhaps
circumstantial.

Once we have a clear view about these points it would be easier to decide
on the best course of action.

Juan-Carlos

On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 2:48 PM Jerome Henry (jerhenry) <jerhenry=
[email-masked]> wrote:

> It seems that each time this topic come, we hear "oh we can authenticate
> you even if you rotate your MAC", but the problem seems to be a bit more
> subtle (who is 'we', the access network? An undifferentiated series of
> services behind the access network? In what setting (public space?
> Enterprise? For how long is that authentication supposed to be valid [which
> is the crux of course]? Then, who is 'you'? The device? The user? From each
> of these conditions, the answer may be different. But when all these keep
> being mixed up in a general bath, confusion persists.
> On 12/10/20, 3:56 PM, "Madinas on behalf of Michael Richardson" <
> [email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:
>
>