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 ietf@xxxxxxxx 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