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

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

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