I guess I would like to understand what privacy-promoting mechanisms you would find acceptable. For example, I could imagine some form of nonce or address-hiding mechanism known only by the communicating parties, perhaps exchanged during some form of encrypted call setup protocol. Sent using a machine that autocorrects in interesting ways... > On Jun 3, 2022, at 1:26 PM, Adrian Farrel <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hey Alvaro and Stephen, > >>> I oppose the creation of this working group on the basis >>> that it makes no mention of privacy. Extending the kind >>> of privacy-unfriendly source address validation mechanisms >>> (unwisely IMO) used, to something deployed at Internet-scale, >>> could be a major error. >> >> The WG won't be chartered to extend existing mechanisms. >> >> If there's text that gives that impression we should fix it. > > Weeeell, I read... > > | The "Source Address Validation in Intra-domain and Inter-domain Networks > | (SAVNET)" working group will define routing protocol-independent architectures > | and procedures to accurately determine the valid incoming router interfaces > | for specific source prefixes. The accuracy of the enhancements is expected > | to improve upon current SAV mechanisms. > > ...to mean that procedures and enhancements would be defined. > > Actually, I interpreted the whole charter as "examine existing approaches and develop new techniques" and read it in that light. Maybe the charter could be clearer up front that no new mechanisms or extensions to existing mechanisms will be defined. > > What am I missing? > > Cheers, > Adrian >
