Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dmm-4283mnids-05: 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 have updated my DISCUSS position. Thanks for addressing my question about identifier types that do not uniquely identify one node. I previously supported Stephen's DISCUSS and I don't think the issues he raised have been addressed. The argument the document gives for standardizing options for privacy-sensitive identifiers is that it "will avoid additional look-up steps." Why is this sufficient justification given the slippery slope that Stephen describes? In my previous ballot I was 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. I see the new requirement for payload encryption, but nothing about, e.g., encrypting the identifiers, or limiting their transmission to the initial binding, or generating a different cryptographic identifier for each new network attachment. So the benefit of just standardizing the options as-is still seems outweighed by the potential privacy risks as this spec is defined. _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
