On 6/5/2014 5:48 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
I share those concerns. And adopting this without any consideration
of BCP188 would fly in the face of a very recent, very thoroughly
discussed, IETF consensus.
That BCP thankfully includes zero RFC2119 language except the single
word should (not
On 6/5/2014 1:28 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
...
As a matter of fact I tend to agree with many of your criticisms
of the draft, and I like the idea (below) of adding what we might
call the misuse cases. That's a discussion the intarea WG could have.
Brian
I'd vote for WG adoption, and
On Jun 7, 2014, at 6:20 AM, Stephen Farrell stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie wrote:
NATs have both good and bad properties. The slightly better privacy
is one of the good ones.
Better for the hosts they 'hide'; worse as a common network access point.
Consider an enterprise. There are two things we
On 6/7/2014 6:20 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Yes, source addresses leak information that affects privacy. But
we do not have a practical way to mitigate that. So therefore
BCP188 does not call for doing stupid stuff, nor for new laws of
physics (unlike -04 of the draft we're discussing;-)
On 6/11/2014 8:09 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
On 11/06/14 15:54, Joe Touch wrote:
On 6/7/2014 6:20 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Yes, source addresses leak information that affects privacy. But
we do not have a practical way to mitigate that. So therefore
BCP188 does not call for doing
