Re: [v6ops] Google Alert - IPv6

[Tom Herbert <[e-mail]>]

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.

Tom