[savi] Proposed additional privacy paragraph

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Tue, 09 April 2013 18:22 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
X-Original-To: savi@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: savi@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF42821F928D for <savi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Apr 2013 11:22:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GQFn9TwFxv8t for <savi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Apr 2013 11:22:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailc2.tigertech.net (mailc2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.156]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA33521F8FD4 for <savi@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Apr 2013 11:22:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailc2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7685E1228F5; Tue, 9 Apr 2013 11:22:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at c2.tigertech.net
Received: from [10.10.10.104] (pool-70-106-135-50.clppva.east.verizon.net [70.106.135.50]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailc2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CCC501228F3; Tue, 9 Apr 2013 11:22:15 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <51645C43.5070602@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2013 14:21:55 -0400
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, SAVI Mailing List <savi@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-savi-threat-scope@tools.ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [savi] Proposed additional privacy paragraph
X-BeenThere: savi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mailing list for the SAVI working group at IETF <savi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/savi>, <mailto:savi-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/savi>
List-Post: <mailto:savi@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:savi-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/savi>, <mailto:savi-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2013 18:22:31 -0000

Trying to wordsmith what Stephen and I talked about, I ended up with:

    <t>For this reason, the collection and retention of logged binding
    information needs to be considered carefully.  Prevention of
    spoofing does not in itself require such retention.  Analysis of
    immediate events may rely on having logs of current bindings.  Thus,
    privacy issues can be ameliorated by removing binding logs after
    the binding lifetimes expire.  Logs of apparent spoof attempts
    are a separate matter, and may require longer retention to detect
    patterns of deliberate or accidental abuse.<t>

Yours,
Joel