On 7/22/10 11:33 AM, Toni Stoev wrote:
Toni,
On Wednesday 21 July 2010 at 18:23:32 Toni Stoev sent:
On Tuesday 20 July 2010 at 12:36:56 Javier Ubillos sent:
In the case where the service would be provided by random sites
on the Internet, well, it is already provided for free today, but
I don't know how it would scale (or how a business model would
work) if all hosts start registering names automatically.
Many non-mobile service ISPs employ Dynamic DNS too. For inter-ISP
roaming random/devoted sites are the solution. The model is quite
analogous to the one with names.
On Thursday 22 July 2010 at 00:19:31 Scott Weeks sent:
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.
Privacy depends on operators' loyalty. But having a choice of
identifier providers, we can rely on identity privacy, even having
only one connectivity provider.
I don't think the latter is very realistic. On the application layer,
sure, you can have any number of identity providers. But I don't think
it is likely that you will have a supplier of a network identifier that
is not your connectivity provider. Sure, I can imagine a world in which
TOR like companies will emerge that provide some sort of proxy and that
promise to keep your identity secret, but if you want to do that any any
significant scale you will run into problems. Let's not create a design
that forces us 10 years down the road to solve the GUPI-PII (global
unique persistent identifier - person identifiable information)
problem...... I am all for incremental design, but having a tight
coupling between humans and persistent identifiers is asking for trouble
imo.
Klaas
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
