Subject: [DMM] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-dmm-4283mnids-05: (with DISCUSS)

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2017 08:32:42 -0700

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dmm-4283mnids-05: 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 have updated my DISCUSS position. Thanks for addressing my question about
identifier types that do not uniquely identify one node.

I previously supported Stephen's DISCUSS and I don't think the issues he raised
have been addressed. The argument the document gives for standardizing options
for privacy-sensitive identifiers is that it "will avoid additional look-up
steps." Why is this sufficient justification given the slippery slope that
Stephen describes?

In my previous ballot I was 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. I see the new requirement
for payload encryption, but nothing about, e.g., encrypting the identifiers, or
limiting their transmission to the initial binding, or generating a different
cryptographic identifier for each new network attachment. So the benefit of 
just standardizing the options as-is still seems outweighed by the potential
privacy risks as this spec is defined.