Subject: [netext] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-netext-ani-location-08: (with COMMENT)

From: "Stephen Farrell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 07:46:30 -0800

Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-netext-ani-location-08: No Objection

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 http://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:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netext-ani-location/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

- What if the network being identified here was a tethering
n/w or any other kind of n/w that's carried about by a person?
In that case ANI, and these new options, would be privacy
invasive. Does that statement exist in one of the RFCs
referred to in section 6? If not, would it be worth adding
here, even though it might better belong elsewhere?

- intro: What if a WLAN operator has no realm?

- intro: DPI? What's that got to do with it? I'd suggest
removing that.