On 2/3/2017 2:13 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > Please excuse typos, sent from handheld device > >> On Feb 3, 2017, at 3:08 AM, Rolf Winter <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Randomized hostnames might have implications in places we do not even think >> about for now, so why not take this as a mere example. Also, it seems that >> the randomization might not be the problem but the time between changes of a >> name, if tracking is the only use case. How about: >> >> There are obvious privacy gains to changing to randomized hostnames and also >> to change these names frequently. Wide deployment might however affect >> security functions or current practices. For example, incident response >> using hostnames to track the source of traffic might be affected. It is >> common practice to include hostnames and reverse lookup information at >> various times during an investigation. > That works for me. >
I just posted an updated -05 version. The security section now includes the paragraph suggested by Rolf that we just agreed on. The other changes are the s/huitema/thaler/g in section 3 that Stephen suggested, a reference to RFC 1983 to have a definition of FQDN as suggested in Lionel Morand's review, and a couple of minor edit fixes also suggested by Lionel. -- Christian Huitema _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
