Re: The "nomap" Network Identifier Suffix

On 11/26/13, 2:27 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:

Separate from the issues surrounding enforcing declared policy,
putting metadata into identifiers seems like a bad practice.

Besides the issue of scalability — do we really want a SSID that
looks like “mnot_nomap_guestsallowed_privacyguaranteed_prettyplease”
— this proposal is squatting on ALL suffixes; someone who wants to
define the “_guestsallowed” suffix, for example, now can’t do so
because it’s in contention with _nomap.


32 octets is not a lot when you're trying to overload semantic meaning
on top of identifer, you'll run out fast.

Never mind that it’s retroactively assigning semantics to potentially
existing identifiers.

These issues seem very similar to those raised in the
draft-nottingham-uri-get-off-my-lawn. It’s very tempting for us as
standards bodies to encroach upon user-visible identifier space, but
doing so brings a number of concrete technical problems, as well as a
higher concern; that these name spaces are explicitly defined to be
under user (or administrator) control, and taking that control away
retroactively shouldn’t be something we do.

Cheers,


On 26 Nov 2013, at 11:04 pm, Eric Burger 
<eburger(_at_)cs(_dot_)georgetown(_dot_)edu>
wrote:

Tastes like the ‘evil’ bit, in reverse.

On Nov 25, 2013, at 6:50 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi(_at_)gmx(_dot_)net>
wrote:

Hi,

My smartphone can turn into a Wifi access point so I can easily
use its Internet connection from my netbook. Problem is that
nearby devices I do not control might report my whereabouts to
third parties that map network equipment to geographic locations.
A naming convention for net- works has been proposed to address
this, append "_nomap" to the network name and "good actors" will
ignore it. I thought it would be a good idea to document this
convention in a better place than a single vendor's blog post, so
two years ago today I published

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hoehrmann-nomap-00

I think this is a "better than nothing" mechanism and I am not
the most qualified person to document it, and there was pretty
much no interest in the document when I announced it. Still,
especially considering more and more organisations are collecting
such data, I think this needs good documentation. I am looking
for volunteers, suggestions, whatever helps getting that done
without a lot of effort on my part...

Thanks! -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern(_at_)hoehrmann(_dot_)de ·
http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon:
+49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebüll ·
PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/


-- Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature