> 1. I believe it may be more correct to refer to RFC 4012 rather than
> 2622 (as inet6num support is declared in this draft)
thanks!
> 2. paragraph 4, first block, I think it should say "there IS a fair
> number of them."
> 3. paragraph 5 "The geofeed files SHOULD be published over and
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Operations and Management Area Working Group
WG of the IETF.
Title : Authorized update to MUD URLs
Authors : Michael Richardson
Qin Wu wrote:
> Hi, authors of draft-richardson-opsawg-mud-acceptable-urls: I have seen
> most of comments I raised earlier on have been addressed, e.g.,
> 1. provide recommendation to the implementers or developer on when they
> choose MUD URL updating and when they choose MUD
tangtianqing wrote:
tt> I’ve read this draft and I support the adoption. Besides that, I have
tt> some comments below:
Thank you for your comments.
Bringing the most trivial to the top so that others might notice and comment:
doc> 5. Changes to RFC8520 Subsequent MUD files are
>> 8805 was, of course, an Independent Stream production. So I carry as much
>> responsibility as anyone else for the lack of privacy discussion. But, more
>> significantly, I am entirely responsible for not having noted section 4 of
>> RFC 8805 when I wrote my email - oops.
>
> Yeah, I was
> 8805 was, of course, an Independent Stream production. So I carry as much
> responsibility as anyone else for the lack of privacy discussion. But, more
> significantly, I am entirely responsible for not having noted section 4 of
> RFC 8805 when I wrote my email - oops.
Yeah, I was pretty sure
> So perhaps modifying your paragraph to...
>
> RFC8805 geofeed data may reveal the approximate location of an IP
> address, which might in turn reveal the approximate location of an
> individual user. As noted in section 4 of RFC8805, publishers of
> geolocation feeds are
Hi Randy,
Thanks for engaging, and I know I presented an "interesting" challenge.
8805 was, of course, an Independent Stream production. So I carry as much
responsibility as anyone else for the lack of privacy discussion. But, more
significantly, I am entirely responsible for not having noted
hey adrian,
> Is it too late to ask for some privacy considerations to be added to
> this document?
it is never too late to ask for privacy. as usual, the problem is how
to provide it :)
> My initial thought was that the authors would point me to 8805, but a
> quick look there doesn’t show any
Dear working group,
On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 09:43:26PM +, Joe Clarke (jclarke) wrote:
> Happy new year, opsawg. The draft-ietf-opsawg-finding-geofeeds draft
> has undergone some discussion and with the recent -01 revision of the WG
> version of the document, the authors have made all pending
On 2/1/21 12:49 AM, p...@bigdatacloud.com wrote:
I support this
hi,
I very much appreciate the intentions of this text and hope to see the
solutions it proposes widely adopted: I'm planning to implement it
myself right away. therefore, I would like to express my support for
this draft.
Hi,
Is it too late to ask for some privacy considerations to be added to this
document?
My initial thought was that the authors would point me to 8805, but a quick
look there doesn’t show any mention of privacy.
My concern here is that the end-user’s geographic locale is being
12 matches
Mail list logo
