Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dmm-4283mnids-04: Discuss
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmm-4283mnids/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I support Stephen's DISCUSS. I'm also wondering, if all of these identifiers are already in common use in MIPv6 without a standard, if there is some privacy improvement that standardization could contribute (e.g., encrypting the identifiers, or requiring transport encryption, or limiting their transmission to the initial binding, or ... other ideas the community may come up with). The benefit of just standardizing the options as-is seems outweighed by the potential privacy risks as this spec is defined. I'm also confused about the identifier types that do not uniquely identify one node, since I thought that was the point of these options. How are they meant to be used in MIPv6? Would you have multiple mobile node identity options in a single packet that, together, uniquely identify a node? I think this requires some elaboration in the text. _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
