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

Brian E Carpenter <> Thu, 05 June 2014 22:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7953E1A02CE; Thu, 5 Jun 2014 15:58:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7i-cZ-5iCSrJ; Thu, 5 Jun 2014 15:58:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::231]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C13151A025B; Thu, 5 Jun 2014 15:58:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id jt11so1751432pbb.36 for <multiple recipients>; Thu, 05 Jun 2014 15:58:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=y0pzhX90C6934DKqh1gowRsXH6ilopI8QDdJ5dDLDfA=; b=irNmusF4CjC8EB8PW7xepz0obouwqlWw4rFmzOq27CwbW/5/BpVWfMp3z6CS9ES3EH H3C49z0/Jkd6lmTTqr9wV5PgWAUQ5IR2aUyV3r0jsWLYRbYyNclK2FYrzHr9OSsQ/i+g L/b4F8secMhLqX6lQzsFWthiW0ePXPDzfEzCtlnEtAVxYZdlZN1OO9en4k98tU84i2ho woctHTVx+mxS0VS46toKizKa1Y8k0OhlnehojayE6v8cMARINWzdF0s7EjfAuoqc2dhI fi4uUYfLAbSj24UDXTvktSnnN3DrNmoBfwtStUInhApDFP55TrZTXeYrt9yj0YgCURZ7 dRxA==
X-Received: by with SMTP id da2mr1404583pbb.106.1402009098228; Thu, 05 Jun 2014 15:58:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id qq5sm27630827pbb.24.2014. for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 05 Jun 2014 15:58:17 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2014 10:58:24 +1200
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ted Lemon <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 06 Jun 2014 08:11:55 -0700
Cc: "" <>,
Subject: Re: [ietf-privacy] [Int-area] NAT Reveal / Host Identifiers
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Internet Privacy Discussion List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2014 22:58:26 -0000

On 06/06/2014 09:26, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Jun 5, 2014, at 4:28 PM, Brian E Carpenter <> wrote:
>> I have to call you on that. WG adoption is not approval. It's agreement
>> to work on a topic. It is not OK to attempt a pocket veto on adoption
>> because you don't like the existing content.
> WG adoption is a pretty heavy action.   It states that the WG has consensus to work on the document, and weighs heavily in the consensus evaluation during WGLC.   If there are problems with the document, part of the adoption process should be the identification of those flaws and an agreement to address them.   So bringing up those flaws during the adoption process is crucial to the process.

I have no problem with that.

> It's also worth noting that the INTAREA working group is a special working group, with an extremely broad charter, 

Indeed. So (speaking only for myself) I tend to ignore drafts aimed at
the WG until they are close to adoption, because my input bit rate
is limited.


> which is moderated by the fact that in order for work to be done by the working group, the Internet Area ADs have to approve the work.
> So needless to say I at least am watching keenly to see if Stephen's objections are being addressed, and likely won't approve the adoption of the work if they aren't.