Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Proposed Standard
James Woodyatt <jhw@nestlabs.com> Fri, 12 December 2014 19:46 UTC
Return-Path: <jhw@nestlabs.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB90E1A8793 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 11:46:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Jl9SCJOklZ44 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 11:46:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vc0-f179.google.com (mail-vc0-f179.google.com [209.85.220.179]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE2EE1A882A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 11:46:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vc0-f179.google.com with SMTP id le20so3947921vcb.38 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 11:46:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=w0SmhGWbrhX0yET+7DD56lTuNhIbYcCG6XRyArBrdCE=; b=BXFf5nWhNfbyZA7mUJorvaxnE6ErzzUw+G4866GRf79I67yBfwvrhaOsXlkShoRhfg SFCugUCZXCQfedlu345X9i9QGiQdtHv6KQepToVmCfTL4ecj7z5Ni0M0+ZgTA03ANRBV TdJ12BFh+CVGY88qwvtThNBWHOj1BINns9mkvDZg0laZsHvxTVU6n7/9yTI0IwmOT621 2gHlovXfFWmd9FsSr0QmlXYt5GwNlpYTJIBAgbY+Zn0OCkdNR0Mog2Nrg4fGXuHaVXSi Ynw/5Ol3FJJXNLLuT/qOFPAOKNf5jQiBCuKLm5IZIRJFU0EEKdQubw0GxJcKgkm+oCIQ A6NA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmgHOFxzkXjHHBhEp5n5vfjycLZl2kiEDDw/JNGcg9vRc7Wz/QcJNUtGVX35PnOr6U6N9e0
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.221.4.73 with SMTP id ob9mr11380426vcb.13.1418413608743; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 11:46:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.31.153.80 with HTTP; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 11:46:48 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20141201223832.20448.34524.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <20141201223832.20448.34524.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 11:46:48 -0800
Message-ID: <CADhXe535Ln71kKgcLBfomaaQp3Rbfr_iRPPLnsZpPwAzNOTd=Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Proposed Standard
From: James Woodyatt <jhw@nestlabs.com>
To: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e011605244b4f84050a0a276d"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/xOwwopTdES6V8PjLHO5HYrXh-Ig
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 19:46:54 -0000
Everyone— After thinking about it for some time, I have decided that I support changing the status of RFC 6346 to Proposed Standard, and I hope deployment of A+P to become more widespread with IPv4 service. It's my view that RFC 6346 is mainly a system to facilitate the bulk collection of Internet communications metadata, and therefore RFC 2804, RFC 6973 and I-D.iab-privsec-confidentiality-threat would seem to me to be relevant documents in considering what status to assign it. The security considerations section in RFC 6346 openly explains how NAT44/A+P is designed to facilitate bulk metadata collection, which comports nicely with the call in RFC 2804 to remain neutral about the morality of wiretapping while viewing the specification of how it is done to be a Good Thing. It also explains how the privacy considerations related to data minimization of identity metadata retention are traded away in exchange for reduced operating costs, which I think comports nicely with RFC 6973. Finally, I think moving NAT44/A+P to Proposed Standard makes it clear that IETF understands believes IPv4 users cannot expect the mapping between personal identity and IP address to be obscured by carrier-grade NAT44 devices. On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 2:38 PM, The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> wrote: > > The IESG has received a request from an individual participant to make > the following status changes: > > - RFC6346 from Experimental to Proposed Standard > (The Address plus Port (A+P) Approach to the IPv4 Address Shortage) > > The supporting document for this request can be found here: > > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-address-plus-port-to-proposed/ > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits > final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the > ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2014-12-29. Exceptionally, comments may be > sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the > beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. > > The affected document can be obtained via > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6346/ > > IESG discussion of this request can be tracked via > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-address-plus-port-to-proposed/ballot/ > > > -- james woodyatt <jhw@nestlabs.com> Nest Labs, Communications Engineering
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Christian de Larrinaga
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Bob Hinden
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Dave Crocker
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Ralph Droms
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… John Curran
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Dave Cridland
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… George Michaelson
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… 🔓Dan Wing
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Mark Andrews
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… George Michaelson
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Mark Andrews
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Ted Lemon
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… l.wood
- IPv6 Adoption Curve (was Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 … Dave Crocker
- Re: IPv6 Adoption Curve (was Re: Last Call: RFC 6… George Michaelson
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: IPv6 Adoption Curve (was Re: Last Call: RFC 6… Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
- Re: IPv6 Adoption Curve (was Re: Last Call: RFC 6… Randy Bush
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Mark Andrews
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Fernando Gont
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Ted Lemon
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Ralph Droms
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Ted Lemon
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Dave Crocker
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Ted Lemon
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Eggert, Lars
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Ted Lemon
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Ted Lemon
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Randy Bush
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Bob Hinden
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… George Michaelson
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Ted Lemon
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Mark Andrews
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Mark Andrews
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Fernando Gont
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… 🔓Dan Wing
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Mark Andrews
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Lee Howard
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Ted Lemon
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Doug Royer
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Ted Lemon
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Doug Royer
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Ted Lemon
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Doug Royer
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Ted Lemon
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Mark Andrews
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Lee Howard
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Dave Crocker
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… heasley
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Mark Andrews
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Dave Crocker
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Lee Howard
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… John Levine
- Re: [eX-bulk] : Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successfu… Christopher LILJENSTOLPE
- Re: [eX-bulk] : Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successfu… Christopher LILJENSTOLPE
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… James Woodyatt
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Mark Andrews
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… John R Levine
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Douglas Otis
- RE: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Christian Huitema
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Ted Lemon
- RE: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Christian Huitema
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Ted Lemon
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Stewart Bryant (stbryant)
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… heasley
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… heasley
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Mark Andrews
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… 🔓Dan Wing
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… 🔓Dan Wing
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Stewart Bryant