>
>In relation to draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses I remain
>unconvinced that it is necessary at all, and oppose its publication.
I think what is proposed is a useful improvement.
Note that for publication to happen, rough consensus needs to be reached, not
unanimity.
>There are
On 06/19/2013 10:09 AM, Hosnieh Rafiee wrote:
In my opinion, if the purpose of your scan is the last one, then this is a
security issue. If it concerns users' information, then it is a privacy
issue. If you think that it is out of the scope of this group to deal with
the users' data, then it is p
Ole,
>
> I think we in this context only should focus on the effects interface-
> ids have on privacy and tracking. the larger issue is out of scope for
> 6man.
I am not sure about your response. What I understand here is that if you
cannot track a node means then the node has privacy and if you
Hosnieh,
> 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
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
SM,
>> 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 a
On 06/19/2013 09:48 AM, Ole Troan wrote:
>>
>> I tend to agree with Fernando. The dependency is the other way round;
>> stable-privacy-addresses is a reference for the new draft.
>
> possibly; difficult to argue how dependencies should go for a yet-to-be
> written document. ;-)
> we're looking at
Hi Ole,
At 00:48 19-06-2013, Ole Troan wrote:
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
Brian,
ping?
>>> We are thinking that it would be good to have a separate draft that
>>> describes the current approaches to IID creation and how they effect
>>> privacy and tracking. Somewhat along the lines of the email and chart
>>> sent to the IPv6 list by Alissa Cooper.
>>>
>>> The stab
(CC'ed to 6low...@ietf.org, 6...@ietf.org)
The Internet Draft http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brandt-6man-lowpanz-02 was
submitted on June 18, 2013.
Since the -00 revision, the Internet Draft has been updated to address all
comments received.
The authors would therefore like to ask that the do
10 matches
Mail list logo
