Jim and all,
Jim Bound wrote:
> > The alarm was not raised originally by me as to the privacy
> >concerns with IPv6, they were raised by others on the IPv6
> >working group originally in several IETF drafts by others that
> >are authors of those very drafts as far back as 1997. So this is
> >nothing really all that new. What is new though is the lack of
> >addressing those privacy concerns to date despite them being known
> >for some time.
>
> There is a draft to fix it.
Yes? Which one is that? the latest draft also recognizes the
privacy problem as well.
>
>
> IPv6 has not been widely deployed.
Not likely to be either unless or until these problems in the
spec are corrected.
>
>
> The vendors will fix it when the draft is worked.
That may be, let's hope so. But there seems to be some
resistance to doing that presently. Hence public exposure is
necessary in order for the proper pressure to be brought to
bear in order to underscore that this problem MUST be fixed.
>
>
> The press is being typical for the 90's.
The press is always typical, regardless of the decade.
>
>
> Most of this mail has been a waste of our time as a working group IMO.
> Which I will state any time I feel like it. So you cool your jets.
Oh, feel free, please! >;) As will I if I feel that it is relevant and
necessary. >;) But I agree, that most of the denial that there is
a serious privacy concern with IPv6 is a waste of time.
>
>
> /jim
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
