Hi Stephen, please see below.

On 09/14/2016 03:18 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-hip-rfc5206-bis-13: No Objection
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> My review was based on the diff vs. 5206 [1], and turned
> up nothing new of note:-) Seems like a reasonable update
> to me.
> 
> I do however agree about the privacy issue raised by Mirja
> wrt exposing locators. It is worth noting that, so that
> implementers have it flagged that they need to consider
> that - not doing so caused quite a fuss for WebRTC so
> better to not repeat that.

I proposed some text about privacy issues with exposing locators in the 
multihoming draft comment resolution (earlier today)-- do you think something 
along those lines fits with this draft also (mobility)?   Perhaps rephrased to 
mention that even in a non-multihoming case, a host should be aware of any 
privacy issues of the locator that it chooses to next expose after a mobility 
event renders its current locator unusable...

- Tom





_______________________________________________
Hipsec mailing list
Hipsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec

Reply via email to