On Feb 3, 2017, at 8:19 PM, Christian Huitema <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 2/3/2017 2:13 AM, [email protected] > <mailto:[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.
Thanks Christian. I have gone through the new version and it addresses the two outstanding comments from IESG evaluation. I will go ahead and approve this version. Regards Suresh
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
