Re: [6lo] Adoption call for draft-thaler-6lo-privacy-considerations

[peter van der Stok <[e-mail]>]

Hi David,

Thanks for writing the 6lo-privacy-considerations draft. I fully support 
the publication of this draft.

  I also read 6man-ipv6-address-generation. The latter document explained 
more clearly for me the problem that the topology structure of the 
prefix needs the frequent changing of the interface identifier of the 
IPv6 address. It would be helpful if your document stated that the 
sending of the address through a router is an essential part of the 
problem. If I understood correctly, every link-local of or realm-local 
use of the address is not covered by your draft. I assume that this is 
also the thrust of the first paragraph of section 3.1 as well? If yes, 
this makes the use of the EUI64 based address during a local setting up 
of the network still a valid approach.

Can you put the term “link” in a terminology section? I deduced that it 
means the IPv6 address that is transported through one or more Internet 
routers. It confused me quite a bit in the beginning.

I hope this makes sense.

Peter

Samita Chakrabarti schreef op 2015-10-03 01:41:
> Hello All:
> 
> Based on presentations on last two 6lo IETF sessions by Dave Thaler on
> 6lo privacy and possible threats on privacy on some usecases and from
> the general requirements on security and privacy on IoT networks,
> having a guideline and considerations on privacy (and security) are
> important for protocol specifications and developers. Folks in the WG
> meetings also expressed interests and support in working on such a
> document.
> 
> 6lo-chairs are looking into several documents for adoption calls soon.
>  Privacy-considerations is one of them.
> 
> Thus the 6lo-chairs are requesting  a call for  adoption on the
> following document in the 6lo WG:
>