On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 10:35 PM, Watson Ladd <watsonbl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 7:04 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker > <i...@hallambaker.com> wrote: > > I think that we have to go back to the original goal, to reduce leakage > of > > information so that we only disclose where there is a need to know. > > > > The authoritative does not need to know who is making the request. > > > > The TLD does not need to know the complete query. > > > > At some point a recursive somewhere does need to know that a query is > being > > made. That puts client/resolver leakage in a different category to > > client/authoritative. > > Before DPRIV: anyone who owns the DNS box at an ISP can see all > dns-queries go through, and know who made them. > > After: exactly the same. > > Why? Because we were lazy, and solved the easy problems instead of the > worthwhile problems. After the box does not have to be at the ISP. After, you get to choose. > Yes protecting that data might warrant investigation. Yes, I and others > can > > suggest schemes that would provide that protection. No, this is not > > costless. No this is not a low hanging fruit. No this should not be our > > focus in DPRIV right now. > > So we shouldn't solve the problem we want to solve, because solving > the problem we want to solve is hard, so we should solve the problem > we can solve and fool ourselves into saying we wanted to solve it, and > hope no one else notices? Put me down as thinking that this is a > terrible idea. > I am not at all convinced it is a problem that the world does want to solve. By which I mean , wants to solve badly enough to fund the necessary resources. I have a protocol, sure. But I don't have a business model that is likely to drive the deployment for general purpose adoption.
_______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list dns-privacy@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
