IETF Logo Mail Archive

[v6ops] Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-link-v6ops-6mops-01.txt

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sun, 07 July 2024 21:00 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E78EC151534 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Jul 2024 14:00:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.108
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.108 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wmRISQ4Hmxxc for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Jul 2024 14:00:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg1-x532.google.com (mail-pg1-x532.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::532]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1BAD0C151070 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 7 Jul 2024 14:00:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg1-x532.google.com with SMTP id 41be03b00d2f7-7515437ff16so2126164a12.2 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 07 Jul 2024 14:00:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1720385999; x=1720990799; darn=ietf.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:content-language :references:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id:from :to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=70g6qiv76vtBIiQk2EUFy8MNKmMowd7bEho0UOwsdJY=; b=bii9Rkqc71Tiel7UGkHZbDpNRiGXShj/iTX4HvNmHqcvIuOON0HP+XybXJqf31Vs5Y c1RUuBdd7SkArMQfN7A6BA46hZ2AHOzJCwAGmjRtzsctBAALxfEYGsOjNLv3aAUPZ042 Lli1t0HuBXCh+WByRcreYy4GkDml5BvCOB7wNOhPmT8lFDMUNBBYbry6nkOaBFK2iL+p BYt1jbSFSnRO/NTWDtcxJkAVdm/1NuzxAUjG+EcxW6HpLeDvPNaSAlVouG4SXYPV3NPM f97DCU2uLFQNh+TYa1S7GawTWaRqO9r5ShwPQv4tzMwImEPbO/fYwIT2NBPe7M9iNGhN Ny2A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1720385999; x=1720990799; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:content-language :references:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=70g6qiv76vtBIiQk2EUFy8MNKmMowd7bEho0UOwsdJY=; b=SUO2NNoYKASszN4MAU+pH6xH6OAgfVcFmFfZxfA426S8AyFpm1yTHv+uUy+IsZpNw5 VwvgL//gJoEf8+WZHdwHDR5ydmnLKetNrKSeEiNZ5G2S9BGRk56mM4AcRFlTY4fQPlTy 0DNMz5KjP46aKjEZrCQRjlFv8dn7q/Leo6A+KHDgfGb4wbu6YDNuQd1QpFE3yh0M8Xam YuSTzS/RvMGQsMnpNVs6rBQ5za+89dvx0oXb78Gg9Hok3jSaNAooX65b/X1RWSghGFXZ 1Hxf242HQgFeWgo0E0o5LuLKSwoRdjTq0119BDSJNPMfYq471IfPsLcfmC16Kn3uFakm RyOw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzFbANY0LazTHDSBNwm8/cJ4c5WIBJ/Q8BfKxTc6YB6qybUKOzA ymIwOk50W+ikWDSp+RID3n9arbMgOWgOFBdyuy3Ir4gka4KD2MNv3l8hF2MD
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFCMkbZnyGZAoRRn/dAhwNkox3G+iYdkr9vFp12pxYdCGeZFL5MDCdfqY6JqGZa1Ksd16ei4w==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a21:999f:b0:1c2:8bf8:e7ab with SMTP id adf61e73a8af0-1c28bf8eb0dmr375974637.9.1720385999029; Sun, 07 Jul 2024 13:59:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPV6:2404:4400:541d:a600:44b7:2c2e:2bc6:8707? ([2404:4400:541d:a600:44b7:2c2e:2bc6:8707]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 98e67ed59e1d1-2c99a961f50sm6811456a91.21.2024.07.07.13.59.57 for <v6ops@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 07 Jul 2024 13:59:58 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <606d9085-acd4-4080-a588-ebe92f6bc988@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2024 08:59:53 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: v6ops@ietf.org
References: <172035133898.188856.10382266581432455862@dt-datatracker-5f88556585-j5r2h> <CAFU7BATdJHTkeZq-onR3v6VVp3p+3wJ90CP4krWhv2+oDNB1wA@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau2dxK8zYUABsnB_RzMszH2tMUjvsThq=FGwod5Hef6zcA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAN-Dau2dxK8zYUABsnB_RzMszH2tMUjvsThq=FGwod5Hef6zcA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Message-ID-Hash: MCWLPQHURF5XOF4O2N432GMKLYMS4DT5
X-Message-ID-Hash: MCWLPQHURF5XOF4O2N432GMKLYMS4DT5
X-MailFrom: brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-v6ops.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [v6ops] Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-link-v6ops-6mops-01.txt
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/CsbXWcb6tOruO9S6hgkuXxxLjJQ>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:v6ops-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:v6ops-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:v6ops-leave@ietf.org>

On 08-Jul-24 05:36, David Farmer wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sun, Jul 7, 2024 at 6:26 AM Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com <mailto:furry13@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>     Here is the -01 version , which incorporates the feedback received on
>     the list and after my presentations at IETF119 and RIPE88.
> 
>     Comments are appreciated (Brian, I'm still not sure about the Privacy
>     Considerations, looking forward to your suggestions!).
> 
> 
> Maybe say;
> 
> This document does not introduce any new privacy considerations. IPv6-mostly networks have the same privacy considerations as other Dual-stacked or IPv6-only networks.

I believe that's correct. I was wondering whether we could state that an IPv6-only node will have more privacy protection than a dual stack node, but I don't think that's the case. (Except if the dual stack node has a globally unique IPv4 address, perhaps. We tend to assume that NAT44 is always present.)

    Brian

v2.29.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status