Hi,
Some reponses in-line [Uma]:
------------
>>- Analysis of the concepts of identity-identifier split and dynamic
>>identifier changes, including their implications on anonymity and
>>privacy. Explicitly, the framework must define privacy requirements and
>>how potential extensions/solutions should meet them.
>Why is privacy requirements being redefined? The IAB already has a RFC about that. I have not done a search; there are probably IETF RFCs about that subject.
[Uma]: I am not sure what do you mean by "Privacy requirements redefined". Today in mapping systems LOC information is not private, meaning anybody can access this information.
This won't work (or fatal w.r.t security) for lot of applications who are seeking to use ID/LOC protocols.
AUTH into the system (with mutual authentication, if we can) can help restrict who can access the LOC information.
This also entails LOC updates with encryption.
These are essential for ID/LOC protocol deployments (for the applications described in IDEAS).
Privacy requirements in the charter are mostly around these items...
>>Can you clarify what you mean here by maintenance work on IPv4
>>technical specification? Again the context here is a mapping system
>>infrastructure to be used by Id/Loc protocols.
>There is currently an IETF thread about that [1].
>Regards,
>S. Moonesamy
>1. https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg104717.html
[Uma]: What's the relevance of the same here. IDEAS is not seeking to change any type of LOC information used in ID/LOC protocols... this is governed by ID/LOC protocol in use. It could be IPv4 or (mostly) IPv6.
IDEAS doesn't alter or won't come into picture outside of ID/LOC protocol context.
--
Uma C.