I think Ted answered this but one little bit more... On 05/06/14 21:28, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Stephen, > > On 06/06/2014 00:48, Stephen Farrell wrote: > > Hiya, > > On 05/06/14 08:05, Hannes Tschofenig wrote: >>>> If you want to review a document with privacy implications then >>>> have a look at the NAT reveal / host identifier work (with >>>> draft-boucadair-intarea-host-identifier-scenarios-04 currently in >>>> a call for adoption). >>>> >>>> I had raised my concerns several times now on the mailing list and >>>> during the meetings. > > I share those concerns. And adopting this without any consideration > of BCP188 would fly in the face of a very recent, very thoroughly > discussed, IETF consensus. > >> I have to call you on that. WG adoption is not approval. It's agreement >> to work on a topic. It is not OK to attempt a pocket veto on adoption >> because you don't like the existing content. > > For something like this, the onus ought > IMO be on the proposers to have done that work before asking for > adoption. > >> Why? Where do the rules say that?
Just to clarify: I don't think we have rules that say that, nor do I have any kind of veto, I was just expressing my opinion, for this case. S >> As a matter of fact I tend to agree with many of your criticisms >> of the draft, and I like the idea (below) of adding what we might >> call the misuse cases. That's a discussion the intarea WG could have. > >> Brian > > Based on the draft, they clearly have not done that. > > We could also ask to add more use-cases: > > use-case#12: spy on everyone more easily, TEMPORA++ > use-case#13: sell data that's even more fine-grained than clickstreams > use-case#14: expose your n/w internals to help on path attackers > use-case#15: track hosts from which people emit "dangerous" utterances > use-case#16: block hosts from which people emit "dangerous" utterances > use-case#17: charge me more for using two of my computers in my house > > The set of use-cases presented very much contradicts the explicit > claim in the draft that no position is being taken as to the merits > of this. IMO that argues strongly to not adopt this. > > One could also comment on the requirements that seem to > require new laws of physics or are otherwise pretty odd: > > REQ#1: seems to require knowing from packets passing by that > a device is a "trusted device" (and REQ#15 says that can be > done with 16 bits;-) Hmm... are those qubits maybe? > > REQ#5: *all* IP packets MUST have a HOST_ID... but presumably > without a flag day. Hmm... > > REQ#6: says this is a transport thing. Eh, why ask INT-AREA? > > REQ#10+REQ#11: MUST be intradomain only but MUST also be inter > domain. Hmm... > > REQ#18: receiver MUST "enforce policies like QoS." Huh? > > Such a frankly bogus list of "requirements" also means that > this is not something that ought be adopted in the IETF. > > I also think that this proposal has previously been proposed > in other ways and not adopted. Such forum-shopping is yet > another reason to not adopt it, and certainly not as an > area wg thing without any broader IETF-wide consideration. > (As an aside: having to play whack-a-mole with such repeat > proposals is one of the downsides of area wgs. Not sure > if anything can be done about that though.) > > In summary: ignoring BCP188, the selection-bias in use > cases, the badly thought out "requirements" and forum > shopping are all independently sufficient reasons to > not adopt this. And of course that doesn't include all > the other issues with potential solutions listed in > RFC6967 (the reference to which is oddly to the I-D and > not the RFC). > > My conclusion: this one ought go to /dev/null same as the > previous attempts to shop the same thing into other parts > of the IETF. > > S > > >>>> Ciao Hannes >>>> >>>> >>>> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Int-area] Call for >>>> adoption of draft-boucadair-intarea-host-identifier-scenarios-04 >>>> Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2014 04:20:56 +0000 From: Suresh Krishnan >>>> <[email protected]> To: Internet Area >>>> <[email protected]> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> This draft was originally intended to be published as an AD >>>> sponsored submission from the OPS area, but the authors have >>>> expressed their interest to continue this work in the intarea wg >>>> given that RFC6269 and RFC6967 originated here. The draft has been >>>> updated to address the issues brought up during earlier >>>> discussions on the wg mailing list and the latest version of the >>>> draft is available at >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boucadair-intarea-host-identifier-scenarios-04 >>>> >>>> >>>> > This call is being initiated to determine whether there is WG >>>> consensus towards adoption of >>>> draft-boucadair-intarea-host-identifier-scenarios-04 as an intarea >>>> WG draft. Please state whether or not you're in favor of the >>>> adoption by replying to this email. If you are not in favor, please >>>> also state your objections in your response. This adoption call >>>> will complete on 2014-06-19. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> >>>> Suresh & Juan Carlos >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ ietf-privacy >>>> mailing list [email protected] >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-privacy >>>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Int-area mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area >> . >> > _______________________________________________ ietf-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-privacy
