Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-hip-multihoming-11: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-multihoming/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - I think section 6 ought note the privacy issue that was relatively recently with WebRTC and ICE where a client might not want all of it's IP addresses exposed, as doing so could expose the fact that the client e.g. is using Tor or another VPN service. The issue being that in some locations, that information may be quite sensitive. 4.2 notes this but in a quite opaque way, ("may be held back") but it'd be better to say some more. 5.1 is also relevant maybe in that it says one "SHOULD avoid" sending info about virtual interfaces. Anyway, I think it'd be good to add some recognition of this privacy issue to section 6. I am not arguing that this draft ought specify the one true way to avoid this problem, but only that it be recognised. - 4.11: what's the concern about anti-replay windows? I didn't get that fwiw, not sure if that just my relative ignorance of HIP or if more needs to be said in the document. _______________________________________________ Hipsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
