Re: [perpass] Updated info for perpass lunch mtg

FWIW, I think its a fine example, showing as it does that
not all changes are protocol changes and that some changes
to sensible defaults for implementations might depend on
how privacy-friendly one wants to be. Analyses like this
that make those kinds of thing explicit are very welcome.

And we don't need to worry about the draft cutoff here,
we're at the early stages of figuring this stuff out.

Cheers,
S.

On 02/17/2014 07:01 PM, Christian Huitema wrote:
>> * http://huitema.net/papers/draft-huitema-perpass-dhcp-identifiers-00.txt
> 
> Just a quick note about this draft. During previous perpass discussions, I
> mentioned the need to go back to old standards and review them. Typical
> reason for the review is that post-Snowden, our estimate of proper tradeoff
> between ease of management and privacy changes. The review of DHCP here is
> typical. 
> 
> Of course, I missed the submission window by a whole week, so I don't really
> expect the draft to be reviewed during the next IETF. Besides, I cannot join
> you in London. But regardless of the actual content, you may use it as an
> example of what "reviewing old RFC" could mean.
> 
> -- Christian Huitema
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> perpass mailing list
> perpass@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass
> 
> 