Subject: Re: Internet Protocol Version 6 Workshop

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 00:08:32 -0800

Jim and all,

  As you know Jim, and possibly you too Vint, I am on the WG for IPv6
and have been following some of the discussion and assisting where
I have something to contribute.

  A little over a year ago, there was some heated debate (I was
involved) regarding the Privacy concerns with IPv6.  Most of this
is do to two problems.  One being the "Autoconfig" for implementation
specification for IPv6, the other is the "Always On" feature of IPv6.
The implementation (Autoconfig as default) was and remains that
biggest problem with respect to Privacy issues.  (Autoconfig) should
not be default was my argument for implementation.  I also suggested
several changes to the Spec for Autoconfig for consideration.  But
the majority of the group felt that being able to track folks easily
was more important.  I found this astounding.  As a consequence
I was soon contacted by several members of the press and did a
few interviews regarding the concerns of Privacy with IPv6 which
raised quite a fuss with the IETF community at the time.

JIM FLEMING wrote:

> Vint,
>
> Will you be telling them about the IPv6 Privacy Problem?
>
> http://www.internetwk.com/columns/frezz100499.htm
>
> http://www.comsoc.org/confs/IPv6/
> Internet Protocol Version 6 Workshop
> IPv6: The New Internet Tidal Wave
> 27 November 2000
> Fairmont Hotel, San Francisco, CA USA
> @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
> http://www.globecom2000.com/daireg/agenda.view.cfm?daiRegID=59&agendaGroupID
> =10
>
> Jim Fleming
> http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif
> http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif
> http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif
> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 09:46:24 -0500

Jeff Williams <[email-masked]> writes:

> was more important.  I found this astounding.

This characterization of past IPng WG discussions is most definitely
false and at best a gross distortion of past discussions. At no time
that I can recall has the WG ever argued that "tracking folks" is a
desirable goal.  It is also completely inconsistent with the WG's
recent decision to recommend that the IESG publish
draft-ietf-ipngwg-addrconf-privacy-03.txt as a Proposed Standard.

Thomas

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 10:30:06 -0800

Just to add that the "Statement on IPv6 Address Privacy" can be found at:

    http://playground.sun.com/ipng/specs/ipv6-address-privacy.html

Bob

---

From: "JIM FLEMING" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 12:39:53 -0600

[1]
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/ipv6-wg/20000701-20001001/msg00038.ht
ml

IAB/IESG Recommendations on IPv6 Address Allocations
      September 1, 2000
...
Examples of obvious choices of host number (IEEE Mac Address, E.164 number,
E.214
IMSI, etc) suggest that no assumption should be made that bits may be
stolen from that range for subnet numbering; current generation MAC
layers and E.164 numbers specify up to 64 bit objects.
...
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

[2] @@@@@ http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/apnic-talk/0009/msg00001.html

----- Original Message -----
From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
To: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; vinton g. cerf - ISOC <[email-masked]>;
ISI IPv6 list <[email-masked]>; Internet Architecture Board <[email-masked]>;
IPng List <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 12:30 PM
Subject: Re: Internet Protocol Version 6 Workshop

---

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 21:06:27 -0800

Thomas and all,

  I am sorry I must respectfully disagree with you here Thomas.
I specifically had a running debate with two members of the Ipng
list members discussing this issue.

Regards,

---

From: "Brian Haberman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 07:53:48 -0500

Jeff,
     Make up your mind.  Is it two members of the mailing list OR
a majority of the working group?  BIG difference.

Brian Haberman

---

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 17:34:25 -0800

Brian and all,

  If you read my previous response carefully I said two (2) other
members of the list.  (See below)  Your point?  Big difference
from WHAT?  >;)  I never said anything about the majority
of the WG.  I responded that this subject WAS actually discussed
in some detail and at some length, which disagreed with the
response from Thomas (Also below).

Regards,