I agree too and think Joe's outlined a good starting point to discuss "misuse".
Rob -----Original Message----- From: ietf-privacy [mailto:ietf-privacy-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joe Touch Sent: 05 June 2014 21:42 To: Brian E Carpenter; Stephen Farrell Cc: ietf-priv...@ietf.org; int-area@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ietf-privacy] [Int-area] NAT Reveal / Host Identifiers 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 agree with the above with the caveat that such "misuse" should focus on: a) ways proposed mechanisms "undo" current mechanisms that *might* have been intended to preserve privacy (e.g., NATs are deployed for lots of reasons, and we never know intent per se, but privacy preservation CAN be a reason) b) ways proposed mechanisms can exceed restoring what such devices "undo" and be used to track hosts, processes, or other identities beyond what the original packet *would have already exposed*. I.e., for a device that inserts the source IP address and TCP source port for NAT traversal, it would at best be considered to 'undo' the potential privacy-creation intent of a NAT, but would NOT be considered to exceed what the original packet conveyed. Joe _______________________________________________ ietf-privacy mailing list ietf-priv...@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-privacy _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
