>On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 9:36 PM, Scott Brim wrote:
>> I have the usual concerns about privacy. I have no problem with someone
>> knowing the endpoint that is communicating is associated with a vehicle
>> (or that I, a human, am communicating from a vehicle). However, if
>> someone can map easi
On 2/18/13 1:07 PM, Roger Jørgensen wrote:
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 9:36 PM, Scott Brim wrote:
I have the usual concerns about privacy. I have no problem with someone
knowing the endpoint that is communicating is associated with a vehicle
(or that I, a human, am communicating from a vehicle).
I also think a VIN-based IPv6 addressing is a bad idea.
People involved in ITS (Intelligent Transportation System) in other SDOs
(ISO, ETSI, CEN) are using pseudonyms at L2 (see the SeVeCom project, or
the PRESERVE project) and NEMO at L3 (see GeoNet, CVIS and the ITSSv6
projects) so that loc
On 02/18/13 16:07, Roger Jørgensen allegedly wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 9:36 PM, Scott Brim wrote:
>> I have the usual concerns about privacy. I have no problem with someone
>> knowing the endpoint that is communicating is associated with a vehicle
>> (or that I, a human, am communicating f
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 9:36 PM, Scott Brim wrote:
> I have the usual concerns about privacy. I have no problem with someone
> knowing the endpoint that is communicating is associated with a vehicle
> (or that I, a human, am communicating from a vehicle). However, if
> someone can map easily fro
I have the usual concerns about privacy. I have no problem with someone
knowing the endpoint that is communicating is associated with a vehicle
(or that I, a human, am communicating from a vehicle). However, if
someone can map easily from an IP address to a VIN (thus knowing the
specific vehicle
Hello 6MAN folks,
I would like to announce, on behalf of the co-authors, the submission
of 2 drafts relating to VIN-based IPv6 addressing.
VIN stands for Vehicle Identification Number, and it is specifically
used in a context of IPv6 vehicular communications. These proposals
aim at providing discu
Bill,
On 18/02/2013 00:05, Bill Jouris wrote:
> At this point, it seems like the best thing to do is draft two separate
> proposals:
> 1) list extension headers, and
> 2) a separate one to deal with firewalls and how they deal with extensions.
>
This isn't going to happen before IETF86,
