Personal Information Tagging for Logs
draft-irtf-pearg-pitfol-00

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (pearg RG)
Last updated 2020-09-09
Replaces draft-rao-pitfol
Stream IRTF
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml pdf htmlized (tools) htmlized bibtex
Stream IRTF state (None)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Document shepherd No shepherd assigned
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                                             S. Rao
Internet-Draft                                                S. Nagaraj
Intended status: Experimental                                       Grab
Expires: March 14, 2021                                         S. Sahib
                                                                R. Guest
                                                              Salesforce
                                                      September 10, 2020

                 Personal Information Tagging for Logs
                       draft-irtf-pearg-pitfol-00

Abstract

   Software systems typically generate log messages in the course of
   their operation.  These log messages (or 'logs') record events as
   they happen, thus providing a trail that can be used to understand
   the state of the system and help with troubleshooting issues.  Given
   that logs try to capture state that is useful for monitoring and
   debugging, they can contain information that can be used to identify
   users.  Personal data identification and anonymization in logs is
   crucial to ensure that no personal data is being inadvertently logged
   and retained which would make the logging system run afoul of laws
   around storing private information.  This document focuses on
   exploring mechanisms that can be used by a generating or intermediary
   logging service to specify personal or sensitive data in log
   message(s), thus allowing a downstream logging server to potentially
   enforce any redaction or transformation.

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 RFC 2119 [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

Rao, et al.              Expires March 14, 2021                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                   PITFoL                   September 2020

   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 March 14, 2021.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 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.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Motivation and Use Cases  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Challenges with Existing Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Proposed Model  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     5.1.  Defining the log privacy schema . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     5.2.  Typical Workflow  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     5.3.  Log Processing and Access Control . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   6.  Examples  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   9.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   10. Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10

1.  Introduction

   Logs capture the state of a software system in operation, thus
   providing observability.  However, because of the amount of state
   they capture, they can often contain sensitive user information
   [link: twitter storing passwords].  Personal data identification and
   redaction is crucial to make sure that a logging application is not
   storing and potentially leaking users' private information.  There
   are known precedents that help discover and extract sensitive data,
   for example, we can define a regular expression or lookup rules that
Show full document text