Subject: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-haddad-momipriv-problem-statement-00.txt]

From: Wassim Michel Haddad <[email-masked]>
Date: 19 Oct 2004 16:18:23 -0400

Hi all,

> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
> 
> 
> 	Title		: Privacy for Mobile and Multi-homed Nodes: MoMiPriv 
> 			  Problem Statement
> 	Author(s)	: W. Haddad, et al.
> 	Filename	: draft-haddad-momipriv-problem-statement-00.txt
> 	Pages		: 13
> 	Date		: 2004-10-18
> 	
> This memo describes the privacy in mobility and multi-homing problem 
> statement.
> 
> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-haddad-momipriv-problem-statement-00.txt

Comments are appreciated.

Regards,

Wassim H.

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 14:53:51 +0200

>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-haddad-momipriv-problem- 

I'm not happy about this singling out privacy issues like this, because  
it implicitly says "more privacy is better". That's certainly not the  
case: there needs to be a balance between privacy and accountability.  
Today, the internet operator community has huge problems with all kinds  
of abuse conducted by people who manage to hide behind other's systems  
they managed to corrupt. We can't have privacy extensions make these  
problems worse.

   "Note that while using only a different IPv6 address for each
    new session may prevent/mitigate the ability to trace a MN on
    the IP layer level, it remains always possible to trace it
    through its device identifier(s) on the MAC layer level and
    consequently, to learn all IPv6 addresses used by the MN by
    correlating different sessions, thus breaking any unlinkability
    protection provided at the IP layer."

Huh??? This is certainly not universally true.

Another issue is that the references are all towards drafts and not  
RFCs. This is very bad because 1. people tend to know the RFCs and not  
necessarily the drafts and 2. drafts disappear after a while.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 15:11:39 +0200

It's clear that our goal in multi6 is to not create any *new*
privacy issues compared to monohoming. I've haven't had a chance
to read the draft yet, but all we need to do here is check that
question for whatever solution proposal emerges.

     Brian

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 21:04:43 +0200

On 23-okt-04, at 15:11, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> privacy issues compared to monohoming.

IPv4-style multihomed sites must register their details in one or more 
whois databases.

That would be just as good a baseline as single homing in IPv6.