Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-intarea-nat-reveal-analysis-05.txt> (Analysis of Solution Candidates to Reveal a Host Identifier (HOST_ID) in Shared Address Deployments) to Informational RFC

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 11:33:07 -0800

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
>[email-masked] 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