Subject: [Captive-portals] BoF proposal: Evaluate impact of MAC address randomization to IP applications

From: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2020 12:34:55 +0000

Jason, Jason, Yiu,

Based on the previous email thread, may I suggest a couple of items to improve the BoF proposal (wiki/agenda) ?

- I guess that there will be more than 50 people based on the initial reactions

- adding capport as conflict to be avoided for the BoF

- adding a link to draft-lee-randomized-macaddr-ps

- assuming that it is too early to form a WG, please state the status of ‘non WG forming’

- putting  the description & agenda on the wiki https://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki before this Friday 2nd of October deadline

- starting to find a potential chair who is not a proponent

- Adding discussion about privacy impact on the agenda is important or even critical

- adding IEEE coordination is also important (could be handled before the potential BoF)

More specific to draft-lee-randomized-macaddr-ps-01, here are a couple of comments (mostly details):

  *   MAC addresses are not always 48 bits long
  *   MAC addresses are not always assigned by manufacturers (think VM)
  *   Suggest to distinguish between ‘stable’ and ‘static’ and ‘persistent’ MAC address
  *   Of course BCP 14 is no more RFC 2119 ;-)
  *   PS-04 is more a requirement than a problem statement

Hope this helps and happy to continue the discussion of course ;-)

-éric