ith the vagueness; looking now
for a definition is not helpful. Looking for clarity on the concepts and
aspects — “what the rules are” — I think is amenable to at least significant
improvement.
David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
___
ietf-privacy mailing list
ietf-privacy@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-privacy
On Jun 8, 2014, at 20:26 , Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote:
a NAT hides the host *at the expense* of exposing a router
If I have the energy to do a DoS attack, surely I have the energy to traceroute
the hosts I know to find a common routing point?
David Singer
Manager, Software Standards
Sent from my iPad
On May 21, 2014, at 9:47 PM, Christian Huitema huit...@microsoft.com wrote:
This RFC defines an IP header option for security options. The options
enable hosts to mark their traffic as belonging to a particular security
level. Presumably, secure routers will ensure
://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/ppm-legacy-review/ticket/8?
___
ietf-privacy mailing list
ietf-privacy@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-privacy
David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc
and not to be worried about, but I am not sure
that’s true. “Was your privacy violated when the guy behind you noticed you
bought a Mars bar?” would usually get the answer “no”, I think, not “yes, but
to an insignificant degree”.
David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc
