IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ipwave] MAC Address minor textual issue

Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li> Thu, 18 May 2017 15:09 UTC

Return-Path: <tony.li@tony.li>
X-Original-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF86212EB3B for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 May 2017 08:09:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 MoC0lYlZiE5t for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 May 2017 08:09:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resqmta-ch2-06v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-ch2-06v.sys.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe21:29:69:252:207:38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DB8DC1293D9 for <its@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 May 2017 08:03:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resomta-ch2-05v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.101]) by resqmta-ch2-06v.sys.comcast.net with SMTP id BMx0dnWqal4eqBMxJdOF89; Thu, 18 May 2017 15:03:09 +0000
Received: from [10.120.1.165] ([12.1.72.210]) by resomta-ch2-05v.sys.comcast.net with SMTP id BMv5du1YxxrGZBMv8dIOnW; Thu, 18 May 2017 15:01:07 +0000
From: Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>
Message-Id: <846437B4-BE7D-4DF2-9C37-26D60180E82B@tony.li>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_271A47C5-DE3B-44C8-A288-9731088ABB07"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 08:00:52 -0700
In-Reply-To: <CAP6QOWQkSod0JxSdN9U+ztPwhLu0z35w-=O=WMQL1EOi_UzwpQ@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Jérôme Härri <jerome.haerri@eurecom.fr>, Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>, "its@ietf.org" <its@ietf.org>
To: John Kenney <jkenney@us.toyota-itc.com>
References: <b7d0f246-da90-ac56-db69-40e9e929900d@gmail.com> <13CE99A5-4B32-472A-B793-3ADC2E530409@vigilsec.com> <009601d2cfde$ad5abce0$081036a0$@eurecom.fr> <CAP6QOWQkSod0JxSdN9U+ztPwhLu0z35w-=O=WMQL1EOi_UzwpQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfOe66wYgv2kCJqwKOzPzZKfPa5HT04FpdJXhicD87O0TloFcc3B89sUO+f4wRoT66bNGZGjyQtYMFazGppqNRu3N4H/wJg6Br03CvLV2S27xNUkbmmeR /vOGJcLU+7y8txlWImfXOizxstuAytNnHjKTzLQDmZ/8Iz342b1lP+EFF6T7sq5ZIRCXXCNJg9FyzmSgGJDQGO3EfYK9VVB+95MQ1TJi2FcEf4Tw6RF59Dgp Cs6afUYgOd9Pmk0A3+4zrdoahxbo1zbZ2IxWHISXRGtCqfajO3Un6I9wBVQebTbE
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/its/AYapcjFH8daz0DJS73hId7LCVPg>
Subject: Re: [ipwave] MAC Address minor textual issue
X-BeenThere: its@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IPWAVE - IP Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments WG at IETF <its.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/its>, <mailto:its-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/its/>
List-Post: <mailto:its@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:its-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its>, <mailto:its-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 15:09:48 -0000

> On May 18, 2017, at 7:50 AM, John Kenney <jkenney@us.toyota-itc.com> wrote:
> 
> I do not agree with the statement that "there are strong privacy concerns". I suggest changing "concerns" to "requirements".
> 
> I think stating that there are strong concerns conveys a sense of this being a big unsolved problem. For the DSRC/ITS-G5 community this is not the case. Privacy protection, including careful avoidance of PII in messages, pseudonymous certificates, and frequent identifier randomization, has been designed into DSRC/ITS-G5 from day 1.  

Well, I for one am still mystified by how the solution maps to IP.  DSRC can do all of this work, but if my IP addressing doesn’t change in synchrony, it seems like it all doesn’t help. And if the IP addresses do change in synchrony, you abort upper layer TCP connections.

So I’m still concerned.

Tony

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email