Re: The "nomap" Network Identifier Suffix

[Mark Andrews <[e-mail]>]

In message <[e-mail]>, Ted Lemon writes:
> On Nov 26, 2013, at 3:13 PM, Richard Barnes <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > The evil bit is ridiculous because evil people have no incentive to set
> > it (thus nobody would ever look for it to be set).  With the _nomap
> > suffix, the people who would need to set it have an incentive to do so,
> > and at least in certain cases, the entities that might consume it have
> > incentives to obey it as well.
>
> Yup.   Google certainly paid a high price recently for doing something
> analogous to ignoring this suffix.

No Google paid a high price for storing more than what every box
uses when it displays a list of available WiFi networks.  If they
had just done that I suspect that they would have been fine.

As for this proposal.  I think it is a waste of time.  If you need
this information then it needs to be built into the signaling
elsewhere and that is a job for IEEE not IETF.

Mark
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: [phone]                 INTERNET: [e-mail]