Re: [Ideas] Comments on draft-ccm-ideas-identity-use-cases-02

[Uma Chunduri <[e-mail]>]

Thx for the feedback on this version. I saw Alex's responses - some more of it below.

--
Uma C.

----

	>I think the most critical use case isn't described here. It is in mobility where a devices may have many thousands of identifiers assigned to it. When the device moves, all the identifiers must move
               > with it and want this to be performed in one operation in the infrastructure. Without the ability to perform a group operation, identifier-locator might not be able to scale. Today this is done by virtue 
               >of moving a device prefix, but device prefixes do not have reasonable privacy or security properties (see ongoing discussion in v6 ops about host prefix assignment and privacy ramifications).
[Uma]: Yes.

	>The phrase "long-lived" is ill-defined. Not just in this document, but I've noticed this popping up in other WGs. The obvious problem is that there is no common definition of the time it takes something to be long-lived. 
                >Someone might say a day, another an hour, a minute, a second, ten milliseconds etc. In identifier-locator, it may be that a node wants to use a different identifier in every connection it creates which is the best privacy it can get.
[Uma]:  It's relative. This is not new and not introduced in IDEAS.  This is nothing but HIT in HIP or EID in LISP (which are used for location resolution today).  The context of this usage is to differentiate from the one time anonymous identifiers used in the data plane.. Can clarify further.

	>This by the way is why I don't think end user devices should ever participate in identifier-locator protocols...
 [Uma]: You  are making a pretty broad statement here.  Which device uses this is orthogonal to IDEAS.   We have a host based solution (ID/LOC) HIP  and a network based solution LISP.