At 11:06 22-02-2013, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the Internet Area Working Group WG
(intarea) to consider the following document:
- 'Analysis of Solution Candidates to Reveal a Host Identifier (HOST_ID)
in Shared Address Deployments'
<draft-ietf-intarea-nat-reveal-analysis-05.txt> as Informational RFC
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing lists by 2013-03-08. Exceptionally, comments
may be
My comments should not be read as a statement of support. :-)
In Section 1:
"Section 3 discusses privacy issues common to all HOST_ID solutions.
It is out of scope of this document to elaborate on privacy issues
specific to each solution."
I suggest explaining what "HOST_ID" is.
In Section 2:
"HOST_ID does not reveal the identity of a user, a subscriber or an
application."
I suggest adding an explanation for that statement.
In Section 4.4.1:
"For HTTP, Forwarded header ([I-D.ietf-appsawg-http-forwarded]) can be
used to display the original IP address when an address sharing
device is involved."
A HTTP proxy is not an address sharing device in my opinion.
"The address sharing device has to strip all included Forwarded
headers before injecting their own."
In Section 4.4.2:
"Injecting Forwarded header also introduces some implementation
complexity if the HTTP packet is at or close to the MTU size."
What is a HTTP packet?
Regards,
-sm