Privacy considerations for IP broadcast and multicast protocol designers
draft-ietf-intarea-broadcast-consider-02

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (intarea WG)
Last updated 2017-02-13
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text pdf html bibtex
Stream WG state WG Document
Document shepherd No shepherd assigned
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Internet Engineering Task Force                                R. Winter
Internet-Draft                                                  M. Faath
Intended status: Informational                              F. Weisshaar
Expires: August 17, 2017         University of Applied Sciences Augsburg
                                                       February 13, 2017

Privacy considerations for IP broadcast and multicast protocol designers
                draft-ietf-intarea-broadcast-consider-02

Abstract

   A number of application-layer protocols make use of IP broadcasts or
   multicast messages for functions like local service discovery or name
   resolution.  Some of these functions can only be implemented
   efficiently using such mechanisms.  When using broadcasts or
   multicast messages, a passive observer in the same broadcast/
   multicast domain can trivially record these messages and analyze
   their content.  Therefore, broadcast/multicast protocol designers
   need to take special care when designing their protocols.

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 August 17, 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
   (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

Winter, et al.           Expires August 17, 2017                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft      Broadcast privacy considerations       February 2017

   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
     1.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Privacy considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.1.  Message frequency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.2.  Persistent identifiers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.3.  Anticipate user behavior  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.4.  Consider potential correlation  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.5.  Configurability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   3.  Operational considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   4.  Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   5.  Other considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   6.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   9.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11

1.  Introduction

   Broadcast and multicast messages have a large (and to the sender
   unknown) receiver group by design.  Because of that, these two
   mechanisms are vital for a number of basic network functions such as
   auto-configuration or link-layer address lookup.  Also application
   developers use broadcast/multicast messages to implement things like
   local service or peer discovery and it appears that an increasing
   number of applications make use of it [TRAC2016].  That is not
   entierly surprising.  As RFC 919 [RFC0919] puts it, "The use of
   broadcasts [...] is a good base for many applications".  Broadcast
   and multicast functionality in a subnetwork are therefore important
   as a lack thereof renders the protocols underlying these mechanisms
   inoperable [RFC3819].

   Using broadcast/multicast can become problematic if the information
   that is being distributed can be regarded as sensitive or when the
   information that is distributed by multiple of these protocols can be
Show full document text