Hi Tom,

On 19/09/16 06:31, Tom Henderson wrote:
> 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)? 

Sure. Warning folks about non-obvious things over which we've
previously tripped seems like a generally good thing. (Well,
at least until we all learn to not trip over that thing;-)

>  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...

I trust you to find the relevant wording.

Cheers,
S.


> 
> - Tom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

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

Reply via email to