Identity Use Cases in IDEAS
draft-ccm-ideas-identity-use-cases-02

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2017-10-10
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml pdf html bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                                   U. Chunduri, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                  A. Clemm
Intended status: Informational                                    Huawei
Expires: April 13, 2018                                         M. Menth
                                                 University of Tuebingen
                                                        October 10, 2017

                      Identity Use Cases in IDEAS
                 draft-ccm-ideas-identity-use-cases-02

Abstract

   IDentity-EnAbled networkS (IDEAS) introduce the concept of Identity
   (IDy) into networking.  An IDy represents a high-level identifier
   representing a collection of identifiers of a device, node, or
   process used for communication purposes.  It is used for
   authentication purposes and never revealed in data plane packets.
   This document summarizes some conceptual use cases to illustrate the
   usefulness of IDEAS.

Requirements Language

   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 [RFC2119].

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 https://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 April 13, 2018.

Chunduri, et al.         Expires April 13, 2018                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft         Identity Use Cases in IDEAS          October 2017

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
   (https://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
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Acronyms  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Uses for IDy  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  IDy in IDEAS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  IDy Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.1.  Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.2.  Unified Policies  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       5.2.1.  Access Restriction Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     5.3.  Uses of Metadata  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     5.4.  Access Security and Manageability . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     5.5.  Delay-Tolerant Networking (DTN) . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   6.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10

1.  Introduction

   An Internet Protocol (IP) [RFC0791] address signifies both a
   Communications Entity's (Section 2) Location and its Identification.
   Location and Identification separation protocols, for example HIP
   [RFC7401] and LISP [RFC6830], introduced the concept of Identifier
   and separated this information from the Locator (IP address in this
   case).

   The Location/Identifier split separates Location and Identification
   function for a specific networking device, i.e., the Identifier
   denotes a device while the Locator denotes a routable network

Chunduri, et al.         Expires April 13, 2018                 [Page 2]
Show full document text