>Privacy is handled in the same way as security. Perfect privacy (as with
perfect security) doesn't exist... and you usually must decide when putting
even more effort on it doesn't make any more sense.
My point is that this is not true. Let's use a real life example. Suppose
that someone knows the
Hi, Sujing,
On 05/02/2013 05:14 AM, Sujing Zhou wrote:
>
> Have you ever considered add a date/time (optional ) parameter in
> generation of the new RID,
> for example:
> RID = F(Prefix, Interface_Index, Network_ID, DAD_Counter,Date/Time,
> secret_key),
> thus will result in different IID each
>> However, in the case of
>> roaming the feature is highly debatable. If a host visits the same
>> network multiple times, should it always reuse the same ID, or should
>> it get a new identifier each time? It is very easy to argue that
>> "different each time" has better privacy properties.
>Agr
On 04/30/2013 12:38 PM, Hosnieh Rafiee wrote:
>
> No, absolute is too a big word to use but the definition of the
> relative is also much different than when using it in reference to
> security. Unlike security where you can provide relative security
> through the protection of one protocol and t
Philipp,
I didn't really want to continue this debate as I have repeatedly stated my
views in my past responses, but if you like, I will once again explain it
from my point of view.
>you seem to argue that privacy can only be mentioned if the protection is
absolute.
No, absolute is too a big wo
Hosnieh,
am Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 11:17:43PM +0200 hast du folgendes geschrieben:
> I guess that we are at an impasse again. I just want to make it clear to
> everyone that this proposed draft of yours doesn't really do anything
> substantial for privacy issues and I find it misleading to mention p
nt: Monday, April 29, 2013 9:56 PM
To: Hosnieh Rafiee
Cc: 'Mark Smith'; 'Alissa Cooper'; ipv6@ietf.org; 'Christian Huitema'
Subject: Re: Last Call: (A
method for Generating Stable Privacy-Enhanced Addresses with IPv6 Stateless
Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC)) to Propos
Hosnieh,
Quite a few times I have responded to your comments, and have even
provided pointers to publicly-available papers that you seem to have
ignored.
I disagree with your comments below... but cannot really invest more
time in writing responses you'll ignore.
This I-D improves at least two p
Dear Mark
>So privacy and security are relative, not absolute. I think this provides
better privacy compared to the use of MAC addresses for IIDs
Unfortunately that answer is not exactly true. As I explained in my last
messages, it is really related to the lifetime of the router prefix. In
reali
On 04/29/2013 01:47 AM, Mark Smith wrote:
>> What I keep saying is this rfc draft does not have any effect on
>> privacy and everything related to the router prefix.
>>
>
> So privacy and security are relative, not absolute. I think this
> provides better privacy compared to the use of MAC addres
- Original Message -
> From: Hosnieh Rafiee
> To: 'Brian E Carpenter'
> Cc: 'Fernando Gont' ; 'Alissa Cooper'
> ; ipv6@ietf.org; 'Christian Huitema'
> Sent: Monday, 29 April 2013 6:13 AM
> Subject: RE: Last Call:
&
Dear Brian,
>You keep saying that, but it's a *host* IID and therefore primarily a host
>issue. In some cases, hosts are subject to a local policy, but in other cases
>they are completely autonomous. It's reasonable to >have several optional
>standards for how hosts autonomously create their I
On 29/04/2013 03:28, Hosnieh Rafiee wrote:
> ... Whether or not an IID in a network
> is fixed or not is a network policy issue and not a standards issue.
You keep saying that, but it's a *host* IID and therefore primarily
a host issue. In some cases, hosts are subject to a local policy,
but in o
>It *is* solved by DHCP, but not by RFC4941: RFC4941 addresses are
>generated *in addition* to SLAAC addresses. That's why, I'm told,
>Windows replaces traditional SLAAC addresses with a time-invariant
>version of RFC4941 - besides *additionally* implementing RFC4941 for
>temporary addresses.
>Her
On 04/27/2013 04:20 PM, Hosnieh Rafiee wrote:
> I do not think repeating what I explained before will be of much help. I
> never received any responses from my last discussions with Fernando so I
am
> not going to continue that discourse.
>FWIW, I responded to your messages. However, most of them
On 04/27/2013 09:47 PM, Christian Huitema wrote:
>> * second one: correlation of node activities within the same
>> network. In many cases, no matter whether you change your
>> addresses, it won't be solved.
>
> That's largely true, because hosts leak tons of information on the
> network they conn
> There are essentially three privacy issues:
>
> * main one: IIDs that are constant across networks (this is the one that is
> very harmful)
I think outlining that issue is perhaps the most important aspect of Fernando's
draft. The logic of automatic address configuration is that a host gets an
Hi Fernando,
I owe you an apology as one of the comments I made on this thread may
be misinterpreted. You responded to all the comments I read.
Regards,
-sm
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative
On 04/27/2013 01:51 PM, SM wrote:
> Hi Fernando,
> At 12:13 26-04-2013, Fernando Gont wrote:
>> In some scenarios, that's impossible. Trivial example: If you have a
>> network with a single host attached to it, no matter whether you change
>> your address periodically (*), it will be possible to co
Hosnieh,
On 04/27/2013 04:20 PM, Hosnieh Rafiee wrote:
> I do not think repeating what I explained before will be of much help. I
> never received any responses from my last discussions with Fernando so I am
> not going to continue that discourse.
FWIW, I responded to your messages. However, most
...@resistor.net]
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 8:37 PM
To: Hosnieh Rafiee
Cc: Alissa Cooper; ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Last Call: (A
method for Generating Stable Privacy-Enhanced Addresses with IPv6 Stateless
Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC)) to Proposed Standard
Hi Hosnieh,
At 09:51 27-04-2013
Hi Hosnieh,
At 09:51 27-04-2013, Hosnieh Rafiee wrote:
I mentioned this comment in the first versions of this draft, but nobody
seemed to agree with me at that time so I stopped with the dialogue.
I gather that would be in the message at
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg168
At 14:32 25-04-2013, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>One comment and one nit below.
[snip]
>This implication seems misguided. Providing the ability to track and
>correlate the communications of a device that never leaves a single
>network is a significant concern. It is one concern among several that
>
Hi Fernando,
At 12:13 26-04-2013, Fernando Gont wrote:
In some scenarios, that's impossible. Trivial example: If you have a
network with a single host attached to it, no matter whether you change
your address periodically (*), it will be possible to correlate the
hosts' activities.
(*) That of c
At 14:32 25-04-2013, Alissa Cooper wrote:
One comment and one nit below.
[snip]
This implication seems misguided. Providing the ability to track and
correlate the communications of a device that never leaves a single
network is a significant concern. It is one concern among several
that the
25 matches
Mail list logo
