On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 3:01 AM, Oda, Terri <terri.oda@intel.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 5:23 AM, Mike West <mkwst@google.com> wrote: >> >> Any strong objections to changing the algorithm to always return "does >> not match" when presented with an IP address? >> > > I don't know that I'd say *strong* objections, but I find it a hard to > believe that this wouldn't eventually conflict with some internet of things > plans. Or rather, with some "uh oh" IoT security issue mitigation plans in > the future... > IoT worries me in general. I think for CSP2, I'm in favor of allowing IPv4 addresses, adding metrics to user agents to see how widely used they are, and circling back to the question of IoT once those groups are further along with their plans. It's not really clear to me how those devices will be identified, so I'd like not to lock anything in/out right now. -mike -- Mike West <mkwst@google.com>, @mikewest Google Germany GmbH, Dienerstrasse 12, 80331 München, Germany, Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891, Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg, Geschäftsführer: Graham Law, Christine Elizabeth Flores (Sorry; I'm legally required to add this exciting detail to emails. Bleh.)
Received on Wednesday, 4 February 2015 09:01:18 UTC