Re: Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-16: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Thomas Narten <[e-mail]>]

I have followed, but not commented on the perpass discussion. But I do
share the concern raised by some that pushback as a result of perpass
concerns can easily get out of hand. 

Is this a preview of what's to come?

At Wed, 22 Jan 2014 16:10:35 -0800,
Stephen Farrell wrote:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> (0) Just modifying my disucss to discuss a part of Brian's discuss:-)
> I'm sure we'll sort it out easily enough though. I very much do not
> think that it'd be a good plan to store every address that has been
> generated using this algorithm. That would be making a
> privacy-enhancing feature damage privacy. See [1] for an example.

And can you point me to the text in the draft that suggests doing so?
(Hint: the draft says no such thing.)

Or for that mattter, who has suggested anyone do this? (Again, AFAIK,
no one has suggested this.)

Are we in hyperbole land? Can we please get back to reality?

Are we now going to require that all internal logs be scrubbed of
potentially sensitive material? If we think we are going to stop the
storage and recording of IP addresses on the devices that are actually
using those addresses, that is just nuts. Think this through for a
minute!

I'm sure the IETF could say the IP stack (as part of trying to make
network connectivity work better) shouldn't store/cache addresses it
has used. And maybe as a result the stack will work a little less
efficiently but it at least won't have stored an address it recently
used...

But then we better hope that noone bothers to look in the browser
cache, or /var/log/messages, etc. which will likely have the same
information and much much more...

Thomas