On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 6:26 AM Fernando Gont <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 07/25/2018 05:34 PM, Christopher Wood wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 8:05 AM Tommy Pauly <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Yes, I'm inclined to agree—I think that having a unique address per > >> connection shouldn't be the default; an application could certainly always > >> set it if it wants to decrease linkability? > > > > Applications should not have to opt-in to better privacy. Decreased > > linkability should be the default. So if doing this per-connection is > > shown (not just believed) to be infeasible, then per-application is a > > reasonable compromise. > > Certainly, one address per application would be a more sensible default. > However, I'm of the idea that whatever default one picks is the result > of an analysys of tradeoffs, and not the other way around.
I concur. Privacy is not binary, as Aaron suggests. It's a gradient, so tradeoffs must necessarily be made based on use case analysis. Best, Chris _______________________________________________ Taps mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
