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

[Brandon Williams <[e-mail]>]

I agree that the discussions in this draft and rfc6269 at least imply 
that potential solutions would provide a host identifier of some sort. 
However, this draft does not in fact propose any such solution, and 
instead clearly references rfc6967, which includes a discussion of the 
privacy implications of host identification. In particular, that 
document states:

    HOST_ID specification document(s) should explain the privacy impact
    of the solutions they specify, including the extent of HOST_ID
    uniqueness and persistence, assumptions made about the lifetime of
    the HOST_ID, whether and how the HOST_ID can be obfuscated or
    recycled, whether location information can be exposed, and the impact
    of the use of the HOST_ID on device or implementation fingerprinting.
    [IAB-PRIVACY] provides further guidance.

Considering the fact that there is already a separate solution analysis 
rfc that discusses privacy considerations and provides the above 
guidance for authors of solution drafts, what are you suggesting for the 
use cases draft?

Thanks,
--Brandon

On 06/09/2014 10:01 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
>
> On 09/06/14 14:46, Brandon Williams wrote:
>>
>> Would you please indicate where the draft proposes a new identifier? If
>> you are seeing a proposal for protocol changes somewhere in the draft,
>> editing work is required in order to either clarify or excise the
>> associated text.
>
> Fair enough that its an assumption of mine that adding some kind of
> identifier is required to meet the (no-longer mis-stated:-)
> requirements for these use-cases. But I think that is logically
> required, and its valid to draw obvious conclusions and its also
> invalid to ignore obvious conclusions.
>
> S.
>

-- 
Brandon Williams; Senior Principal Software Engineer
Emerging Products Engineering; Akamai Technologies Inc.