Re: The "nomap" Network Identifier Suffix

[joel jaeggli <[e-mail]>]

On 11/26/13, 2:27 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> Separate from the issues surrounding enforcing declared policy,
> putting metadata into identifiers seems like a bad practice.
> 
> Besides the issue of scalability — do we really want a SSID that
> looks like “mnot_nomap_guestsallowed_privacyguaranteed_prettyplease”
> — this proposal is squatting on ALL suffixes; someone who wants to
> define the “_guestsallowed” suffix, for example, now can’t do so
> because it’s in contention with _nomap.

32 octets is not a lot when you're trying to overload semantic meaning
on top of identifer, you'll run out fast.

> Never mind that it’s retroactively assigning semantics to potentially
> existing identifiers.
> 
> These issues seem very similar to those raised in the
> draft-nottingham-uri-get-off-my-lawn. It’s very tempting for us as
> standards bodies to encroach upon user-visible identifier space, but
> doing so brings a number of concrete technical problems, as well as a
> higher concern; that these name spaces are explicitly defined to be
> under user (or administrator) control, and taking that control away
> retroactively shouldn’t be something we do.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> On 26 Nov 2013, at 11:04 pm, Eric Burger <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> 
>> Tastes like the ‘evil’ bit, in reverse.
>> 
>> On Nov 25, 2013, at 6:50 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> My smartphone can turn into a Wifi access point so I can easily
>>> use its Internet connection from my netbook. Problem is that
>>> nearby devices I do not control might report my whereabouts to
>>> third parties that map network equipment to geographic locations.
>>> A naming convention for net- works has been proposed to address
>>> this, append "_nomap" to the network name and "good actors" will
>>> ignore it. I thought it would be a good idea to document this
>>> convention in a better place than a single vendor's blog post, so
>>> two years ago today I published
>>> 
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hoehrmann-nomap-00
>>> 
>>> I think this is a "better than nothing" mechanism and I am not
>>> the most qualified person to document it, and there was pretty
>>> much no interest in the document when I announced it. Still,
>>> especially considering more and more organisations are collecting
>>> such data, I think this needs good documentation. I am looking
>>> for volunteers, suggestions, whatever helps getting that done
>>> without a lot of effort on my part...
>>> 
>>> Thanks! -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[e-mail] ·
>>> http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon:
>>> +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebüll ·
>>> PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
>> 
> 
> -- Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
> 
> 
> 
>