Hi Stephen, please see below. On 09/14/2016 03:18 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote: > Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-hip-rfc5206-bis-13: No Objection > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > My review was based on the diff vs. 5206 [1], and turned > up nothing new of note:-) Seems like a reasonable update > to me. > > I do however agree about the privacy issue raised by Mirja > wrt exposing locators. It is worth noting that, so that > implementers have it flagged that they need to consider > that - not doing so caused quite a fuss for WebRTC so > better to not repeat that.
I proposed some text about privacy issues with exposing locators in the multihoming draft comment resolution (earlier today)-- do you think something along those lines fits with this draft also (mobility)? Perhaps rephrased to mention that even in a non-multihoming case, a host should be aware of any privacy issues of the locator that it chooses to next expose after a mobility event renders its current locator unusable... - Tom _______________________________________________ Hipsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
