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

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Sun, 08 October 2017 18:02 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: ideas@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ideas@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79C7A134880; Sun, 8 Oct 2017 11:02:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.109
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.109 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=opendkim.org header.b=VC9oCCkz; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com header.b=dI+CiB7z
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Qgpu0q6xPi7T; Sun, 8 Oct 2017 11:02:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B890C133338; Sun, 8 Oct 2017 11:02:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([197.227.87.111]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v98I1kEn003113 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 8 Oct 2017 11:01:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1507485718; x=1507572118; bh=mRTGOIVdoqVp/v4qmRS4+dtbdoXKnuAlIjso7XkUDGo=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=VC9oCCkzXYq+kYRnXJb3mYGin+ZNafL+5on3Vb+gx6NushR7eY5Mu5+Ze2cc5b/V3 TX8QCpkD/oB7yuidgw/65MM0rIftd+jnv0auzHAQ4AM8b8JWQSbqE8Q/mEQXrPcXFK t421djl/w/deoOYk98TJBEKHhZUgtVcZXoXjeAek=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1507485718; x=1507572118; i=@elandsys.com; bh=mRTGOIVdoqVp/v4qmRS4+dtbdoXKnuAlIjso7XkUDGo=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=dI+CiB7z0prKrfy7KLZHfCuadFHYQssLTY9PugJMazZRA1ZM3vqFEqpUliZIUQiGw 5HOdR/nRNP3gsYIJ8aFK45/xMBLsFP8ImXCoi0V8kyT+58maA3KwjQPzYFFmKtV7z/ MImAhj0dB7ppWqEasckIUFWCQAKAEud4yk4heRLE=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20171008102541.11499408@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2017 10:55:57 -0700
To: Padma Pillay-Esnault <padma.ietf@gmail.com>, ietf@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Cc: ideas@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <CAG-CQxpnHKtov+pj6YFL0wxnO3YX7mbLUA9uHUkVQbHqE3A1rQ@mail.g mail.com>
References: <150670160872.14128.2758037992338326085.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20171007163002.11c897a0@elandnews.com> <CAG-CQxpnHKtov+pj6YFL0wxnO3YX7mbLUA9uHUkVQbHqE3A1rQ@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ideas/mTdLfLzMKcWI7ZLbxIozSPP3Sts>
Subject: Re: [Ideas] WG Review: IDentity Enabled Networks (ideas)
X-BeenThere: ideas@ietf.org
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." <ideas.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ideas>, <mailto:ideas-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ideas/>
List-Post: <mailto:ideas@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ideas-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ideas>, <mailto:ideas-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2017 18:02:01 -0000

Hi Padma,
At 06:38 PM 07-10-2017, Padma Pillay-Esnault wrote:
>Not sure if you have been following the discussions the last few 
>days and emails today.  The charter which is under review is not 
>trying to create an embedded identifier to track users.

I caught up with the thread about this proposed working group.  The 
(proposed) charter might say that it is not trying to create an 
embedded identifier to track users.  What if that was a side effect 
of this work?

I took a look at the ideas problem statement draft.  I can understand 
that there may be a need for identification.  However, it is up to 
the companies or 501(c)(3) status organizations to make their case for that.

Will this proposed working group do any maintenance work on IPv4 
technical specifications?  Will the output of this proposed working 
group be used for future work on IPv4 technical specifications?

>The draft in question is being updated and the authors are doing for 
>clarification.

Ok.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy