[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
- [savi] Proposed additional privacy paragraph Joel M. Halpern