james woodyatt wrote: > > There is nothing about NAT or > dynamic subscriber IP assignment that provides any mitigation > whatsoever of the risks I'm more than a little concerned by the message that you're sending here. European legislators have enacted a "E-Privacy Directive" also dubbed "European Cookie Directive" in order to protect the privacy of citizens, and you're suggesting here that the IETF should actively subvert this legislation and similar ongoing legislative initiatives in the US by assigning static IPv6 addresses to home DSL subscribers so that cookies are completely obviated and everyone can be trivially tracked based on his static IP-Address. This means you want to make IPv6 addresses and all communications with that address direct personally identifiable information, something for which a "must informed beforehand", let alone an "opt opt" is technically impossible? james woodyatt wrote: > > On Jun 30, 2011, at 18:46 , Martin Rex wrote: > > > > And that [false police report incident] is really among > > the mild unpleasant things... > > It's also not even remotely relevant. Under the regime where that > incident happened, it's not even news anymore when the police do > that without any provocation at all. That regime where this happened was the US. So you're declaring the entire US out-of-scope and the entire European Union out-of-scope? I was under the impression we were talking about _the_Internet_ for which the IETF is usually producing standards and technology, and seem to have confused this with your discussion about matters of some other network somewhere, that happend to got redistributed by the IETF mailing list exploder only by accident. -Martin _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf