In your previous mail you wrote: Frankly, I find all this new-found privacy concern to be misplaced,
=> it is not new found, I raised the same issue at least at the last two IETF meetings. And BTW it is not really a technical issue, it is a legal one in many countries (I'd like to believe most at the exception of USA) and as usual with many legal issues we can expect not very rational arguments from the outside... (cf the embedded MAC address for IPv6). To summary I am afraid of the perception of this from the outside, and I argue the IETF *must not* endorse the document (i.e., publish it with a draft-ietf-* name) with the privacy considerations in the current state. Statements like "this is bad for privacy" are not technical; => unfortunately this is a wish, not an argument, as the real issue is legal and not technical from the beginning as you should get from the issue history. statements like yours which talk about a persistent identifier are technical, and helpful in framing the problems and how HOST_ID does not make the problem any worse than today's publicly-routable IPv4 addresses and tomorrow's publicly- routable IPv6 addresses. => in fact the end of your statement is not fun at all: as far as I know there is a legal lobby in Germany arguing publicly-routable IPv6 addresses is a threat against privacy... I repeat this again: ignoring this kind of problems is *not* the right way to get rid of them. Regards francis.dup...@fdupont.fr _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
