Re: [Ideas] WG Review: IDentity Enabled Networks (ideas)

S Moonesamy <> Sun, 08 October 2017 18:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF5AE1348E9; Sun, 8 Oct 2017 11:34:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.789
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.789 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.b=AQMGiM3X; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.b=YMALx5nf
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id f__A4A_ffRqo; Sun, 8 Oct 2017 11:34:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D76741348E8; Sun, 8 Oct 2017 11:34:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v98IYD8K018137 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 8 Oct 2017 11:34:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail2010; t=1507487665; x=1507574065; bh=VcVuoaB3C2dfRMUyElSMQMZu5vZrzPBiNwm/I2cFkY0=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=AQMGiM3Xf+z5tkTFU6NsDYCncDGqZU+8G59edUfDX2C2gCXzS/xUrtt/CPaFJTqKw zaT++SxunVo/OOqOfK6H4CLD/XQuHy28vL8doNi5P0qvd7+XnEjUWvDGpo4L1zY9EH h49PCa3w/E0ew+Gg7MsgvySO4axy7uAvPhzModTM=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1507487665; x=1507574065;; bh=VcVuoaB3C2dfRMUyElSMQMZu5vZrzPBiNwm/I2cFkY0=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=YMALx5nfURyP+Er17OIj2t11QYMvYsHaQvJTge4HKv45t0Q4+rBofSq3yXIBbJ3V+ ES+/6Xr1161mE/bpqWVCiOLYYyfkfaeM5IPXM0ycYu4ucBmnn5c7lOZ9pHl2UPBUh5 F5yx6oINnUDDFEf9ogvDbzPf+ztpaoENpWdmSdlE=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2017 11:33:14 -0700
To: Padma Pillay-Esnault <>,
From: S Moonesamy <>
In-Reply-To: <CAG-CQxpEb8Lcjy0M5445K4Ob+nQW15WeEooggcxpb=hToB4HZw@mail.g>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Ideas] WG Review: IDentity Enabled Networks (ideas)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussions relating to the development, clarification, and implementation of control-plane infrastructures and functionalities in ID enabled networks." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2017 18:34:30 -0000

Hi Padma,
At 11:20 AM 08-10-2017, Padma Pillay-Esnault wrote:
>There is even text in the charter regarding this.
>- Analysis of the concepts of identity-identifier split and dynamic 
>identifier changes, including their implications on anonymity and 
>privacy. Explicitly, the framework must define privacy requirements 
>and how potential extensions/solutions should meet them.

Why is privacy requirements being redefined?  The IAB already has a 
RFC about that.  I have not done a search; there are probably IETF 
RFCs about that subject.

>?? Not sure what /how this is in context .... Are we still taking 
>about routing information here?


>Can you clarify what you mean here by maintenance work on IPv4 
>technical specification? Again the context here is a mapping system 
>infrastructure to be used by Id/Loc protocols.

There is currently an IETF thread about that [1].

S. Moonesamy