Re: [v6ops] Google Alert - IPv6

[Ole Troan <[e-mail]>]

Tom,

> On 30 Oct 2017, at 16:40, Tom Herbert <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 7:53 AM, Ole Troan <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Tom,
>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I think that's fine.
>>>> As long as you make it clear that:
>>>> - the IP address _never_ identifies an individual.
>>> 
>>> Ole,
>>> 
>>> I don't think this is something that can be part of the definition of
>>> an IP address, it's more of a desirable property of how IP addresses
>>> are assigned and used. For instance, a smartphone is given an IP
>>> address and technically identifies the host. But given that there is a
>>> likely one to one correspondence between personal device (and its
>>> address) to an individual user, the IP address of the device
>>> effectively identifies the individual or at least can be used with a
>>> little more information to do so. In this case, the IP address seems
>>> to be Personally Identifiable Information.
>> 
>> 
>> I am in no way trying to define an IP address.
>> 
>> My one and only point was that in this document one should not give the indication that an IP address by itself identifies an individual. Which revision -00 did.
>> 
>> (Sure, if the IP address leads to a single-user device with strong user authentication, there is a reasonable chance that it identifies an individual or an individual that knows who has been using it (e.g. their kids). Unless it is already owned by the NSA or a similar organisation.) Where did you interpret that as if I was trying to "define" an IP address?
> 
> It was the "_never_" part of your sentence :-). That seems to imply an
> invariant property of IPv6 addresses that could then be part of its
> definition.

Ah, I was purely talking about the draft, and therefore IPv4 addresses and I tried to include the “by itself”. :/)

Cheers 
Ole