Re: [ietf-privacy] [Int-area] NAT Reveal / Host Identifiers

["Horne, Rob" <[e-mail]>]

I agree too and think Joe's outlined a good starting point to discuss "misuse".

Rob


-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-privacy [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Joe Touch
Sent: 05 June 2014 21:42
To: Brian E Carpenter; Stephen Farrell
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [ietf-privacy] [Int-area] NAT Reveal / Host Identifiers



On 6/5/2014 1:28 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
...
> As a matter of fact I tend to agree with many of your criticisms of
> the draft, and I like the idea (below) of adding what we might call
> the misuse cases. That's a discussion the intarea WG could have.
>
>      Brian

I'd vote for WG adoption, and agree with the above with the caveat that such "misuse" should focus on:

a) ways proposed mechanisms "undo" current mechanisms that *might* have been intended to preserve privacy (e.g., NATs are deployed for lots of reasons, and we never know intent per se, but privacy preservation CAN be a reason)

b) ways proposed mechanisms can exceed restoring what such devices "undo" and be used to track hosts, processes, or other identities beyond what the original packet *would have already exposed*.

I.e., for a device that inserts the source IP address and TCP source port for NAT traversal, it would at best be considered to 'undo' the potential privacy-creation intent of a NAT, but would NOT be considered to exceed what the original packet conveyed.

Joe

_______________________________________________
ietf-privacy mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-privacy