Ole,
My apologies if my coments cam across the wrong way. PLease find my
comments in-line...
On 06/21/2013 10:23 AM, Ole Troan wrote:
>
>> This document has been suffering from unnecessary delays for almost a
>> year now.
>
> this document was returned to the working group by the AD, after the I
Fernando,
>>> 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 t
Hi Ole,
At 03:20 19-06-2013, Ole Troan wrote:
the action is on the chairs to initiate the WGLC, and subsequently
to review the document.
Ok.
given the discussion on the list, we are planning a larger session
on privacy, tracking and the interface identifier
in Berlin.
Ok.
I thought it wou
On 06/19/2013 12:20 PM, Ole Troan wrote:
>>
>> 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
>> 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.
>
>
>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
Hi,
On 18/06/2013 23:17, Fernando Gont wrote:
> Ole,
>
> On 06/18/2013 10:20 AM, Ole Troan wrote:
>>> 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 li
Ole,
On 06/18/2013 10:20 AM, Ole Troan wrote:
>
>> 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
Fernando,
> 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 stable-privacy draft sho
ping?
On 06/12/2013 07:55 PM, Fernando Gont wrote:
> Folks,
>
> This latest revision addresses the feedback sent by Alissa Cooper.
>
> Should we progress this document now?
>
> Thanks!
> Fernando
>
>
>
>
> On 06/12/2013 07:45 PM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
>>
>> A New Internet-Draft i
At 10:55 12-06-2013, Fernando Gont wrote:
This latest revision addresses the feedback sent by Alissa Cooper.
Should we progress this document now?
Yes. The proposal will be implemented.
Regards,
-sm
IETF IPv6 working grou
Folks,
This latest revision addresses the feedback sent by Alissa Cooper.
Should we progress this document now?
Thanks!
Fernando
On 06/12/2013 07:45 PM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> This draft is a
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the IPv6 Maintenance Working Group of the IETF.
Title : A method for Generating Stable Privacy-Enhanced
Addresses with IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC)
21 matches
Mail list logo
