--- [email protected] wrote: From: Toni Stoev <[email protected]> On Monday 19 July 2010 at 21:54:29 Scott Weeks sent: > > From the operator community, I would say that in the long run it wouldn't > only be security advocates that'd have an issue and global/universal > uniqueness of the identifier will have an adverse affect on acceptance > of a New Thing.
Scott, it's actually privacy that Tony has pointed out. So, what would prevent operators from liking universal uniqueness? -------------------------------------------- I found an email where he explains it much better than I can. "I think that a fixed, unchangeable, global identifier that is exposed in any way is a privacy issue. Users need a way to be wholly anonymous to the network. They should be able to (privately) arrange their access connectivity and then be able to access the network without concerns that they can be identified based on their link layer or network layer information. I have no problems with a cryptographic private key being used as a globally unique identifier, as long as users have the ability to have multiple keys. Certainly someone who wants to be anonymous can generate a temporary key." Operators in the commercial area have to satisfy their customers and the lack of privacy will cause concern among customers. It's already doing so or TOR and things like it wouldn't exist. I believe this concern will only increase and not decrease over time. Thus the operators will care as it all drives the bottom line. scott ---------- ---------- ---------- _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
