Everyone—
After thinking about it for some time, I have decided that I support
changing the status of RFC 6346 to Proposed Standard, and I hope deployment
of A+P to become more widespread with IPv4 service.
It's my view that RFC 6346 is mainly a system to facilitate the bulk
collection of Internet communications metadata, and therefore RFC 2804, RFC
6973 and I-D.iab-privsec-confidentiality-threat would seem to me to be
relevant documents in considering what status to assign it. The security
considerations section in RFC 6346 openly explains how NAT44/A+P is
designed to facilitate bulk metadata collection, which comports nicely with
the call in RFC 2804 to remain neutral about the morality of wiretapping
while viewing the specification of how it is done to be a Good Thing. It
also explains how the privacy considerations related to data minimization
of identity metadata retention are traded away in exchange for reduced
operating costs, which I think comports nicely with RFC 6973. Finally, I
think moving NAT44/A+P to Proposed Standard makes it clear that IETF
understands believes IPv4 users cannot expect the mapping between personal
identity and IP address to be obscured by carrier-grade NAT44 devices.
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 2:38 PM, The IESG <iesg-secretary(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual participant to make
the following status changes:
- RFC6346 from Experimental to Proposed Standard
(The Address plus Port (A+P) Approach to the IPv4 Address Shortage)
The supporting document for this request can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-address-plus-port-to-proposed/
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 2014-12-29. Exceptionally, comments
may be
sent to iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
The affected document can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6346/
IESG discussion of this request can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-address-plus-port-to-proposed/ballot/
--
james woodyatt <jhw(_at_)nestlabs(_dot_)com>
Nest Labs, Communications Engineering