Ole, In my opinion, if you would prefer an absolute privacy, then changing the IP address is not a complete solution and you need also to use an encryption approach to protect users' data at least in higher layers. So all of the current active drafts can provide privacy to some extend which highly depends on some factors such as: How they maintain the lifetime of the address, the security mechanisms in used (firewalls, etc) , etc.
> > >> possibly; difficult to argue how dependencies should go for a > >> yet-to-be written document. ;-) > > > > There was a message asking Fernando to wait because of a yet-to-be- > written draft. :-) In my opinion the dependency would be non- > normative. There doesn't seem to be much room for argument there. > > the action is on the chairs to initiate the WGLC, and subsequently to > review the document. > given the discussion on the list, we are planning a larger session on > privacy, tracking and the interface identifier in Berlin. > > I thought it would make sense to do the last call on this document, > after that discussion. > > personally I would have preferred to scale back the stable-privacy > document, and move some of the general privacy and tracking discussion > to a more general draft. > the other consideration is also, what's the sudden rush? given that > interface-id generation is a local implementation specific matter, > there is nothing stopping someone who wants different interface-id's > today to go out and implement them. Regards, Hosnieh, Gesendet über MYMAIL für Android -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
