Subject: [Mip6] [issue82] Secdir review of draft-mip6-location-privacy-ps-04

From: admin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 20:20:02 +0000

New submission from admin <[email-masked]>:

I have no major issues with this document.  It appears that there are 
editorial issues, ones that idnits complains about and some that the 
RFC Ed might eventually catch.

The notion of "location" is a bit fuzzy in the abstract and in the 
beginning of the document.  It is later clear that the context is IP 
address location privacy with geographic information deduced perhaps 
from mapping IP addresses to approximate geo-locations.  Perhaps this 
can be made clear in the abstract and in the Introduction.

The security considerations section is pretty light.  It says in part 
that "solutions to provide location privacy ... must be secure 
...."  Even though this is a problem statement document, perhaps it 
is the place to explain the security criteria used in evaluating 
candidate solutions.  For instance, the two types of solutions I can 
think of are 1) providing confidentiality of addresses by encrypting 
them and 2) making use of temporary addresses.  There are 
implications to using either type of solution.

Perhaps there are other ways to list the criteria too.

Hope that helps.

best regards,
Lakshminath

----------
category: Editorial
draft: draft-ietf-mip6-location-privacy-ps
messages: 270
nosy: admin
priority: Should fix
status: Pending
title: Secdir review of draft-mip6-location-privacy-ps-04

_________________________________________________
Mip6 issue tracker <[email-masked]>
<http://www.mip4.org/issues/tracker/mip6/issue82>
_________________________________________________

_______________________________________________
Mip6 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6