Randomized and Changing MAC Address State of Affairs
draft-ietf-madinas-mac-address-randomization-15

[Ballot comment]
Almost felt like an IRTF or IAB workshop report document to me. May be it has some archival value but a blog on persistant website would serve the same purpose. I would ecourage to use the WG wiki to be used for such documentation.

[Ballot comment]
+1 on comments pertaining to the apparent age of the data presented in this draft.  While also recognizing that collecting that data is not trivial.

[Ballot comment]
This is an interesting document, however I can't tell how up to date it is, as it seems it is roughly a publication of research date of Sep 2021.

It would make more sense to me if the document was updated to more recent deployments before publication. But I don't want to block the document from moving forward either.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks to Christian Amsuss for his ARTART review.

I think the archival value of this work is greater than what I inferred from the text in the Abstract.

[Ballot comment]
** Section 1.  Editorial.
  Internet privacy is becoming a huge concern, as more and more devices
  are getting directly (e.g., via Wi-Fi) or indirectly (e.g., via a
  smartphone using Bluetooth) connected to the Internet.

Consider s/Internet privacy/Privacy/

** Section 7. Consider if the tables need to be included here at all and how they will age.  For example, Table 2 appears to be already presenting almost 3 year old results – could these be validated to be true at least at the time of publication?

** Section 7.  Other comments on the consistency and specificity of the table:

--  Per “Linux”, what version or distribution is being referenced?  I ask because it seems like saying “Linux” is the same as “Windows” (no version number).

-- Per “Android 10”, any commentary on 11+?  I ask because Android 10 is 5 years old and Android 11 was already in production well before the September 2021 cut-off.

A revised I-D is required to address the comment received by the AD. If any directorate last call review is coming in the next days, then please them into account.

(Via [email protected]): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-madinas-mac-address-randomization-13, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-07-01):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Reply-To: [email protected]
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Randomized and Changing MAC Address State of Affairs) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the MAC Address Device Identification
for Network and Application Services WG (madinas) to consider the following
document: - 'Randomized and Changing MAC Address State of Affairs'
  as Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
[email protected] mailing lists by 2024-07-01. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to [email protected] instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  Internet users are becoming more aware that their activity over the
  Internet leaves a vast digital footprint, that communications might
  not always be properly secured, and that their location and actions
  can be tracked.  One of the main factors that eases tracking Internet
  users is the wide use of long-lasting, and sometimes persistent,
  identifiers at various protocol layers.  This document focuses on MAC
  addresses.

  There have been several initiatives within the IETF and the IEEE 802
  standards committees to overcome some of these privacy issues.  This
  document provides an overview of these activities to help
  coordinating standardization activities in these bodies.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-madinas-mac-address-randomization/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

The WG itself doesn’t have a large number of active participants, but among those who do participate, the consensus was unanimous. Since the initial shepherd write-up, additional input was supplied in the form of document markup as well mailing list comments. The concerns raised have been addressed and there do not appear to be any outstanding, unresolved comments or dissatisfied commenters.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?

There was no controversy. All respondents supported publication of the document, with some providing specific feedback for improvements in the document. These points have been addressed in subsequent versions of the draft.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
either in the document itself (as RFC 7942 recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?

This is not a protocol document.

Additional Reviews
5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
reviews took place.

This document provides an informative overview of work done in the IETF and in IEEE 802, but it does not otherwise interact with them. The IETF work cataloged in this draft is existing RFCs and not the current work of any WGs. The IEEE 802.11bh task group is probably the most closely related IEEE 802 entity to this document. The document shepherd is a vice-chair of that group and believes the document accurately reflects the related work in the task group and in IEEE 802 in general. The IEEE 802.1 working group reviewed the document and supplied a liaison statement with helpful information that was incorporated into the draft as appropriate.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Nothing in this document requires a formal expert review.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the recommended validation tools for syntax and
formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
in RFC 8342?

The document does not have a YANG module.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

There are no parts of the document written in a formal language.

Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?

There are no areas that appeared to be relevant, although this document does deal with the INT Area’s concern over “IP address privacy”. It does not, itself, cause any such concerns, but rather discusses some of the mechanisms that are used to ameliorate such concerns.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
Informational, Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Informational. This is a survey document providing a summary of MAC address randomization both at the standards body level as well in existing operating system implementations.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? To
the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
to publicly-available messages when applicable.

It's not believed that the contents of this document creates new IPR other than copyright of the document itself. It merely summarizes existing work.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

Idnits is relatively happy outside of a couple of non-ASCII characters in the authors’ names. Regarding the content guidelines, the draft is appropriately named and has the required content. The recommend content sections are not applicable to this draft. The language and style of the draft appear to be acceptable. The ASCII-art diagrams appear to render correctly in both text and HTML versions of the draft. The two tables in the document render appropriately as well. The draft does not contain formal language.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References.

There are no normative references.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?

There are no normative references.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
list them.

There are no normative references.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

The publication of this document will not change the status of any existing RFCs.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see RFC 8126).

There are no IANA considerations for this document, although perhaps it might spell that out more clearly – it currently just says (correctly), “N/A.”

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

There are no IANA registries used by this document.

Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

The WG itself doesn’t have a large number of active participants, but among those who do participate, the consensus was unanimous. Since the initial shepherd write-up, additional input was supplied in the form of document markup as well mailing list comments. The concerns raised have been addressed and there do not appear to be any outstanding, unresolved comments or dissatisfied commenters.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?

There was no controversy. All respondents supported publication of the document, with some providing specific feedback for improvements in the document. These points have been addressed in subsequent versions of the draft.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
either in the document itself (as RFC 7942 recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?

This is not a protocol document.

Additional Reviews
5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
reviews took place.

This document provides an informative overview of work done in the IETF and in IEEE 802, but it does not otherwise interact with them. The IETF work cataloged in this draft is existing RFCs and not the current work of any WGs. The IEEE 802.11bh task group is probably the most closely related IEEE 802 entity to this document. The document shepherd is a vice-chair of that group and believes the document accurately reflects the related work in the task group and in IEEE 802 in general. The IEEE 802.1 working group reviewed the document and supplied a liaison statement with helpful information that was incorporated into the draft as appropriate.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Nothing in this document requires a formal expert review.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the recommended validation tools for syntax and
formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
in RFC 8342?

The document does not have a YANG module.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

There are no parts of the document written in a formal language.

Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?

There are no areas that appeared to be relevant, although this document does deal with the INT Area’s concern over “IP address privacy”. It does not, itself, cause any such concerns, but rather discusses some of the mechanisms that are used to ameliorate such concerns.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
Informational, Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Informational. This is a survey document providing a summary of MAC address randomization both at the standards body level as well in existing operating system implementations.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? To
the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
to publicly-available messages when applicable.

It's not believed that the contents of this document creates new IPR other than copyright of the document itself. It merely summarizes existing work.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

Idnits is relatively happy outside of a couple of non-ASCII characters in the authors’ names. Regarding the content guidelines, the draft is appropriately named and has the required content. The recommend content sections are not applicable to this draft. The language and style of the draft appear to be acceptable. The ASCII-art diagrams appear to render correctly in both text and HTML versions of the draft. The two tables in the document render appropriately as well. The draft does not contain formal language.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References.

There are no normative references.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?

There are no normative references.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
list them.

There are no normative references.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

The publication of this document will not change the status of any existing RFCs.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see RFC 8126).

There are no IANA considerations for this document, although perhaps it might spell that out more clearly – it currently just says (correctly), “N/A.”

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

There are no IANA registries used by this document.