> The draft recommends the GGSN assigning 64 bit prefixes to
> devices.
Just to avoid confusion, the draft itself doesn't recommend it
but the prefix assignment is in the 3GPP specs.
> For a
> single mobile device this amounts to creating a link scope
> with only one
> device on it. Wou
> => Sure. This is still allowed when following the
> paragraph in the draft. The draft is referring to
> the PPP negotiation, which is concerned with the
> interface id for link local addresses only. There is
> no mandate to use the same iid for other scopes
> of adresses. So priva
[playing catchup]
> > Does this (paraphrased) assessment seem correct? I wouldn't
> > want 3GPP to
> > mandate a behaviour that they would believe contributed to
> > identity privacy
> > but, based on some other procedure, did not.
> => But the person tracking would have to know
> t
Hi Thomas,
> > > Does this (paraphrased) assessment seem correct? I wouldn't
> > > want 3GPP to
> > > mandate a behaviour that they would believe contributed to
> > > identity privacy
> > > but, based on some other procedure, did not.
>
> > => But the person tracking would have to k
> With regards to this, I think we came to agreement on new text for
> the section, something that would look like this:
I'm OK with this.
My comment was really more to do with this:
> > I saw a privacy comment in the past (sorry, can't source the
> > original author) that suggested that be
> > > Does this (paraphrased) assessment seem correct? I wouldn't
> > > want 3GPP to
> > > mandate a behaviour that they would believe contributed to
> > > identity privacy
> > > but, based on some other procedure, did not.
>
> > => But the person tracking would have to know
