[hiaps] with respect to the BOF request.

[joel jaeggli <[e-mail]>]

>Description: Host identification is required in IPv4 when the hosts are
behind a NAT box or
>when the communication is tunneled such as using IPSec. Host
identification is also
>required in IPv6 when the hosts are assigned addresses from a shared
prefix. In most of
>these scenarios, the hosts access the network using Wireless Local Area
Networks, aka
>Wi-Fi access. In case the hosts are behind a NAT box, there is a strong
need for the host
>identification when the host is accessing a fixed network and trying to
place an emergency >call.

It is likely given current events, that persistent identifiers visible
to on-path observers are going to be viewed by the IETF community in
general in an extraordinarily negative light. in particular in the IPv6
context I would think it antithetical to the goals of regular rotation
of temporary/privacy or cryptographically generated addresses to retain
host identity bindings that are visible outside a limited scope e.g. an
l2 domain and which persist across host address changes.

In terms of employing them for roaming, the question of how would they
be generated and where who they be stored becomes germain. What
semantics are they actually carrying and the question of persistence
further raises the  stakes with respect to revalation to remote observers.