Hi Tom, On 19/09/16 06:31, Tom Henderson wrote: > 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)?
Sure. Warning folks about non-obvious things over which we've previously tripped seems like a generally good thing. (Well, at least until we all learn to not trip over that thing;-) > 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... I trust you to find the relevant wording. Cheers, S. > > - Tom > > > > >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ Hipsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
