Re: draft-gont-6man-managing-privacy-extensions-00.txt

[RJ Atkinson <[e-mail]>]

On 09  Mar 2011, at 13:49 , Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 2011-03-10 00:17, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>> 
>> I don't think it solves what it thinks it solves, but if this REALLY
>> should be implemented, it's my initial thinking that the H flag should
>> be a MUST demand to only have ONE and only one MAC-based IPv6 address
>> according to EUI64. I would appreciate some reasoning in the draft why
>> this was chosen as a SHOULD option.
> 
> For the reason I just gave against the disable-private flag: this
> violates the host's right to use an untraceable address.

(Hardware I am familiar with is not sentient.  So I don't know 
what it means to talk about the rights of a host, as above ---
I'll assume the meaning is that human users have privacy rights. :-)

> It may be that in corporate deployments, that right can be removed.

At least within the US, I am told that multiple courts have ruled 
that when an employee is using employer-owned equipment attached 
to an employer-owned network, then a reasonable expectation of 
privacy does not exist.  My examples and discussion have solely
focused on this "corporate deployment" scenario.

[ASIDE:  I am also told that the courts have ruled differently with 
respect to people accessing the Internet from their own home when 
using their own equipment.]

[ASIDE: Of course the IETF is global; legal systems vary from one place
to another.  So the above is intended narrowly as a practical example. :-]  

> But removing it for public subscribers would be a political blunder.


Earlier, I specifically noted that the privacy issue ought to be 
discussed in the Security Considerations section of (any) I-D on 
this topic, in (2A) and (2B) of this previous list email:

	<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg13489.html>

Cheers !