Stephen, On 06/06/2014 00:48, Stephen Farrell wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > Hiya, > > On 05/06/14 08:05, Hannes Tschofenig wrote: >> If you want to review a document with privacy implications then >> have a look at the NAT reveal / host identifier work (with >> draft-boucadair-intarea-host-identifier-scenarios-04 currently in >> a call for adoption). >> >> I had raised my concerns several times now on the mailing list and >> during the meetings. > > 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.
I have to call you on that. WG adoption is not approval. It's agreement to work on a topic. It is not OK to attempt a pocket veto on adoption because you don't like the existing content. > For something like this, the onus ought > IMO be on the proposers to have done that work before asking for > adoption. Why? Where do the rules say that? 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 > Based on the draft, they clearly have not done that. > > We could also ask to add more use-cases: > > use-case#12: spy on everyone more easily, TEMPORA++ > use-case#13: sell data that's even more fine-grained than clickstreams > use-case#14: expose your n/w internals to help on path attackers > use-case#15: track hosts from which people emit "dangerous" utterances > use-case#16: block hosts from which people emit "dangerous" utterances > use-case#17: charge me more for using two of my computers in my house > > The set of use-cases presented very much contradicts the explicit > claim in the draft that no position is being taken as to the merits > of this. IMO that argues strongly to not adopt this. > > One could also comment on the requirements that seem to > require new laws of physics or are otherwise pretty odd: > > REQ#1: seems to require knowing from packets passing by that > a device is a "trusted device" (and REQ#15 says that can be > done with 16 bits;-) Hmm... are those qubits maybe? > > REQ#5: *all* IP packets MUST have a HOST_ID... but presumably > without a flag day. Hmm... > > REQ#6: says this is a transport thing. Eh, why ask INT-AREA? > > REQ#10+REQ#11: MUST be intradomain only but MUST also be inter > domain. Hmm... > > REQ#18: receiver MUST "enforce policies like QoS." Huh? > > Such a frankly bogus list of "requirements" also means that > this is not something that ought be adopted in the IETF. > > I also think that this proposal has previously been proposed > in other ways and not adopted. Such forum-shopping is yet > another reason to not adopt it, and certainly not as an > area wg thing without any broader IETF-wide consideration. > (As an aside: having to play whack-a-mole with such repeat > proposals is one of the downsides of area wgs. Not sure > if anything can be done about that though.) > > In summary: ignoring BCP188, the selection-bias in use > cases, the badly thought out "requirements" and forum > shopping are all independently sufficient reasons to > not adopt this. And of course that doesn't include all > the other issues with potential solutions listed in > RFC6967 (the reference to which is oddly to the I-D and > not the RFC). > > My conclusion: this one ought go to /dev/null same as the > previous attempts to shop the same thing into other parts > of the IETF. > > S > > >> Ciao Hannes >> >> >> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Int-area] Call for >> adoption of draft-boucadair-intarea-host-identifier-scenarios-04 >> Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2014 04:20:56 +0000 From: Suresh Krishnan >> <suresh.krish...@ericsson.com> To: Internet Area >> <int-a...@ietf.org> >> >> >> >> Hi all, >> >> This draft was originally intended to be published as an AD >> sponsored submission from the OPS area, but the authors have >> expressed their interest to continue this work in the intarea wg >> given that RFC6269 and RFC6967 originated here. The draft has been >> updated to address the issues brought up during earlier >> discussions on the wg mailing list and the latest version of the >> draft is available at >> >> >> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boucadair-intarea-host-identifier-scenarios-04 >> >> >> > This call is being initiated to determine whether there is WG >> consensus towards adoption of >> draft-boucadair-intarea-host-identifier-scenarios-04 as an intarea >> WG draft. Please state whether or not you're in favor of the >> adoption by replying to this email. If you are not in favor, please >> also state your objections in your response. This adoption call >> will complete on 2014-06-19. >> >> >> >> Regards >> >> Suresh & Juan Carlos >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ ietf-privacy >> mailing list ietf-privacy@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-privacy >> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1 > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTkGcRAAoJEC88hzaAX42iFYYIAIlJHJE1BNetIdjhDTqlTfsX > w+fFwSpCfi1LzZzxYR+ZgnL96ed8QPJ/YJEb4S1jZ0u2g1+DqMbSMsuQ6aW78+WM > iHfyIqO8m7Ahkk1J++/5bK3N0fbqhMjWmqs1cCa7Gg/o9RScZQiMJQef8Iju5gVN > 3dnd/7riV9THntV7DQdwGC0SXp9Wfwn2i3oAqxYVpEixCxxGbQBRPIiXBcaLBP4s > lr86tLPCPdXB2K4uPsuofVxL/uGBkahF6DAGjq3URcUEVi/J82XL+eB/3bLQU5XG > 2Mr0LMu7v4XQ+92zCjm7UmWmiL1fcQ+M0g+5nESSP8bO3sNlFlN33+jzsEGTBRM= > =TF0g > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > _______________________________________________ > Int-area mailing list > int-a...@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area > . > _______________________________________________ ietf-privacy mailing list ietf-privacy@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-privacy