Subject: RE: [mobile-ip] -HMIPv6 draft + Privacy draft-

From: "Glenn Morrow" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 08:32:16 -0600

Claude,
 
More comments on your privacy draft:
 
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20010319/hl/telemedicine_1.html
<http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20010319/hl/telemedicine_1.html> 
 
Generally it seems to me that your solution is quite complex for what it is
trying to solve - bang for the buck.
 
You do not give any reasons for why simply dynamically allocating an
anonymous home address is not sufficient. How can someone track someone if
they do not know their IP address? If someone is concerned about previous
communications they could simple refresh with a new anonymous address on
each communication.
 
You also indicate that IPSEC will have to change in order to use ESP as a
protection mechanisms. This is a pretty lame excuse for your solution in
that your solution proposes changes to both ESP and MIP. 
 
In short, I don't like and I won't support it. I re-iterate it is far too
complex for what it is providing.
 
I do not see why these other proposals for handling this particular problem
are not sufficient as is or with some relatively minor work to security.
 
respectfully,
 
Glenn

---

From: Claude Castelluccia <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 16:04:36 +0100

Hello Gleen,

Glenn Morrow wrote:

> Claude,More comments on your privacy
> draft:http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20010319/hl/telemedicine_1.html

I did not write this draft ;-) ...

> Generally it seems to me that your solution is quite complex for what
> it is trying to solve - bang for the buck.You do not give any reasons
> for why simply dynamically allocating an anonymous home address is not
> sufficient.

what is it an "anonymous home address"??? A TMI  ;-)

> How can someone track someone if they do not know their IP address?

I don't understand what you mean....

> If someone is concerned about previous communications they could
> simple refresh with a new anonymous address on each communication.You
> also indicate that IPSEC will have to change in order to use ESP as a
> protection mechanisms.

did I say that ?

> This is a pretty lame excuse for your solution in that your solution
> proposes changes to both ESP and MIP.

My draft does not talk about ESP at all...

> In short, I don't like and I won't support it. I re-iterate it is far
> too complex for what it is providing.I do not see why these other
> proposals for handling this particular problem are not sufficient as
> is or with some relatively minor work to security.

 what are the other proposals you are talking about?

Our proposal is actually very simple... I am really wondering whether
you've read the right draft ...

> respectfully,Glenn

thanks for your comments anyway,
regards,

Claude.

--

----------------------------------------
Claude CASTELLUCCIA, INRIA Rhone-Alpes
ph:  +33 4.76.61.52.15 (fax: 52.52)
http://www.inrialpes.fr/planete/