On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Uma Chunduri <uma.chunduri@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. I don't believe that is true. There are many examples of deployments that have a private mapping system which is not accessible by just anyone, For instance, in multi tenant virtualization it is imperative that tenants are not able to access the mapping system-- if they were then the whole concept of virtual network isolation starts to breaks done. Mapping systems are already by protected using ACLs, authentication, network isolation, etc. Tom