Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-boucadair-intarea-host-identifier-scenarios-04

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Med,
At 07:24 11-06-2014, [e-mail] wrote:
>   The INTAREA working group
> >previously worked on a RFC about potential solutions for revealing a
> >host identifier.   Are the potential solutions discussed in RFC 6967
> >inadequate?
>
>[Med] The effort in RFC6967 does not ambition to pick a solution but 
>to conduct an analysis effort with a focus on the CGN case. That 
>case is only one among others defined in the scenario draft. 
>Identify and document the use cases is a first step to actually 
>understand the problem we are talking about. This is a contribution 
>to clarify the big picture of this problem space.

I left in my previous comment as it may be easier for the reader to 
understand the discussion.

The previous comment mentioned "potential solutions discussed in RFC 
6967".  In my opinion the above response does not provide an answer 
to the question.

You made an interesting point, i.e. clarify the big picture.  I read 
the RFCs coming from INTAREA.  There was one about "Issues with IP 
Address Sharing" in June 2011.  There is another one about "Analysis 
of Potential Solutions for Revealing a Host Identifier (HOST_ID) in 
Shared Address Deployments" in June 2013.  Now there is a draft about 
"Host Identification: Use Cases".  I haven't seen a discussion of 
that big picture on this mailing list.  My understanding of the 
documents is that the working group is make a case (the word is used 
loosely) for host identification.

>[Med] Privacy is not out of scope as I mentioned in a previous 
>message. Nevertheless, privacy implications may depend on the 
>targeted use case. The considerations in RFC6967 can be completed 
>with new ones if any.

Ok.  I assume that the working group has the expertise and energy to 
do that work.

>[Med] What we declared out of scope is solution-oriented aspects. We 
>wanted to have a very focused document.

This is what I read from the draft:

   "It is out of scope of this document to argue in favor or against the
    use cases listed in the following sub-sections."

That is different from the above response.

I'll wait for the Working Group Chairs to take their decision.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy