Re: [ietf-privacy] Privacy Considerations for Internet Protocols (was: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-yevstifeyev-ftp-uri-scheme-04.txt)
Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com> Sat, 09 July 2011 17:47 UTC
Return-Path: <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4209121F858E for <ietf-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Jul 2011 10:47:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.049
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.049 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G0t2rubrJ9M7 for <ietf-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Jul 2011 10:47:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pv0-f172.google.com (mail-pv0-f172.google.com [74.125.83.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C07221F8587 for <ietf-privacy@ietf.org>; Sat, 9 Jul 2011 10:47:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pvh18 with SMTP id 18so2444550pvh.31 for <ietf-privacy@ietf.org>; Sat, 09 Jul 2011 10:47:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=eF4JABQ/Eq1tlUF0zekKmPUYSBZrjzX5lOc1f0oTlqc=; b=pKP9ZkSb4LUR1eHNydxyuRC3IzQkgF6GQI8Z1UZOWrE3MnJMEgvfF6hi2tVb2ksxjw CnDrQPbI3yLQumPlyWah7j1zHtYbNwQY2zxkVHC1tYPTRucjjC1eE4LD/rwwcl49Vvlf IvbVHxDsru6QQgiYT40IP1aB0/uaosyQZvO3E=
Received: by 10.142.165.13 with SMTP id n13mr1069424wfe.123.1310233620092; Sat, 09 Jul 2011 10:47:00 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.142.88.9 with HTTP; Sat, 9 Jul 2011 10:46:40 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20110709074757.04899d20@resistor.net>
References: <4E15C895.6020701@gmail.com> <CAHhFybq563a9+ivYuk83J3po_02nopeiu=mB3fO26f-o1Mwt0A@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20110708105100.02fa9298@resistor.net> <CAHhFybry+kayJ4-Z+JuA0iY3rALSiB=OKn5zC8VUFcUMuUtwcQ@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20110709074757.04899d20@resistor.net>
From: Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2011 19:46:40 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHhFybp-S1m9S5eWOkUbgZYx4i+=f2k_GTLOL=9QaLg_8XAyHw@mail.gmail.com>
To: SM <sm@resistor.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 09 Jul 2011 11:19:58 -0700
Cc: ietf-privacy@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-privacy] Privacy Considerations for Internet Protocols (was: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-yevstifeyev-ftp-uri-scheme-04.txt)
X-BeenThere: ietf-privacy@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Internet Privacy Discussion List <ietf-privacy.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf-privacy>, <mailto:ietf-privacy-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-privacy>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-privacy@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-privacy-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-privacy>, <mailto:ietf-privacy-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2011 17:47:01 -0000
On 9 July 2011 19:09, SM wrote: > I suggest using that mailing list for further discussion. Thanks, I stripped APPS. Not intending further discussions, just confirming that "privacy considerations" can be a very good things for apparently unrelated I-Ds, such as rescuing FTP URIs from RFC 1738. I'm vaguely aware of HTML5 discussions (reading four blogs) wrt "do not track", but never looked into RFC 4282 before. Similar for OAUTH 2.0, but as there is no "MD5" in it for my test suite I never looked further into it. I'm a user of a quite sophisticated OpenID provider (xlogon.net), they allow to create different "personas" for different purposes, e.g., where a working mail address is required it is not necessarily the ugly (but valuable) address I'm using now, it could be a "public disposable" address @mailinator.com. > draft-morris-privacy-considerations-03, that discusses > about Privacy Considerations for Internet Protocols. Interesting, but apparently not mandating some kind of "privacy considerations". I recall some [GeoPriv] last calls years ago, which sadly didn't prepare me for the precise geolocation with mobile broadband today - while the application (browser) asked for my permission as it should, I never allowed whatever enabled this beyond my permission (at my wireless ISP, or another kind of magic beyond IP-based approaches). Regards, Frank