Re: [dhcwg] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-dhc-dynamic-shared-v4allocation-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

So that change was done and I've cleared the discuss. Thanks
all.

I'm happy to chat about any remaining comments - I didn't
check if related changes there have been made.

Cheers,
S.

On 28/05/15 18:57, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> 
> 
> On 28/05/15 18:27, Christian Huitema wrote:
>> On May 28, 2015 5:23 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote: 
>>>
>>> On 28/05/15 13:19, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote:
>>>> Note also that there is work going on in the DHC WG to address privacy
>>>> issues - see draft-ietf-dhc-anonymity-profile-00. And one of the
>>>> authors (the primary author) is from Microsoft so I am sure this is on
>>>> their radar.
>>>
>>> So just to be clear: the reason I'm asking about this is mainly that I want to be
>>> sure that this draft doesn't make deploying the privacy one harder/impossible.
>>
>> How about adding something like that to the security considerations:
>>
>> The purpose of the "client identifier option" is to ensure that the same client retains the same parameters over time. This interferes with the client's privacy, as it allows the server to track the client. Clients can manage their privacy exposure by controlling the value of the client identifier, trading off stability of parameter allocation for privacy. We expect that guidance on this tradeoff will be discussed in a future version of [draft-ietf-dhc-anonymity-profile].
> 
> That'd work for me. Authors?
> 
> S.
> 
> 
>> -- Christian Huitema
>>
>>
>>
>