Subject: [DMM] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-dmm-4283mnids-04: (with DISCUSS)

From: "Alissa Cooper" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 17:37:15 -0800

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dmm-4283mnids-04: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmm-4283mnids/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I support Stephen's DISCUSS. I'm also wondering, if all of these
identifiers are already in common use in MIPv6 without a standard, if
there is some privacy improvement that standardization could contribute
(e.g., encrypting the identifiers, or requiring transport encryption, or
limiting their transmission to the initial binding, or ... other ideas
the community may come up with). The benefit of  just standardizing the
options as-is seems outweighed by the potential privacy risks as this
spec is defined.

I'm also confused about the identifier types that do not uniquely
identify one node, since I thought that was the point of these options.
How are they meant to be used in MIPv6? Would you have multiple mobile
node identity options in a single packet that, together, uniquely
identify a node? I think this requires some elaboration in the text.