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

I would observe that we have multiple documents which note the 
importance of traceability for "problem" resolution.  Treating privacy 
as an all-or-nothing thing is probably a misleading perspective.
It is extremely likely that privacy addresses, and their bindings to 
homes or office desktops, will be logged.  I would hope that said logs 
will be handled in a manner that preserves privacy in the normal course 
of events.

Pretending that such things will not happen strikes me as even sillier 
than assuming that a malicious host will cooperate with some unenforced 
flags.

Yours,
Joel

On 3/9/2011 2:17 PM, RJ Atkinson wrote:
>
> 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 !
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>