Subject: Re: [ietf-privacy] Last Call: <draft-ietf-nea-pt-eap-06.txt> (PT-EAP: Posture Transport (PT) Protocol For EAP Tunnel Methods) to Proposed Standard

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:34:09 -0800

Hi Nancy,
At 12:29 14-01-2013, Nancy Cam-Winget (ncamwing) wrote:
>[NCW] I can change it to a lower case "must", ok?

That's ok.

>[NCW] We can move the reference to be normative.

Ok.

>[NCW] I don't think there are specifically for PT-EAP.  The sections you
>reference
>Were to (in section 6) addressing the general EAP identity as PT-EAP is
>really not
>An "authentication" method.

If I understood the above correctly PT-EAP does not transport any 
information which could be used to identify an individual.  That's 
different from PT-EAP not being an "authenticated" method. Therefore, 
there isn't much to say in terms of privacy considerations.

I suggest not including the following then:

   "As a transport protocol, PT-EAP does not directly utilize or
    require direct knowledge of any personally identifiable
    information (PII)."

The draft can leverage the second paragraph of Section 6 as "privacy 
considerations" instead of making a statement about PII.  I'll copy 
this message to ietf-privacy@ to get a better opinion.

In Section 6:

   "Therefore, it is important for deployers to leverage these
    protections in order to prevent disclosure of PII potentially
    contained within PA-TNC or PB-TNC within the PT-EAP payload."

I suggest "information about an individual" instead of PII [1].

Regards,
-sm

1. I used the wording from draft-iab-privacy-considerations-06