> Il 12/05/2020 17:18 Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email protected]> ha scritto:
>
> Yes, and I think I know now the root of the problem. 7626bis tries to
> go too far and, instead of discussing the DNS protocol and its privacy
> issues, now goes into end hosts and discuss what is done inside the
> machine, and what should be done. This is certainy interesting, and it
> certainly has consequences on privacy, user control, etc but:
>
> 1) It is a bit outside IETF's domain, since it is not inside the
> network,
I disagree. There are IETF documents that provide policy-level analysis of
complex technical issues and do so throughout the entire network architecture,
both in terms of layers and in terms of hosts. For example, RFC 7754 has an
entire section devoted to what happens within the endpoints and within
applications that run on them.
Also, RFC 6973, which is the document that this draft tries to apply, has an
entire section of the guidelines (7.2) that instructs to discuss issues of user
control, which is what 6.1.1.2 deals with. Actually, the first point of the
section is:
"What controls or consent mechanisms does the
protocol define or require before personal data or identifiers
are shared or exposed via the protocol? If no such mechanisms or
controls are specified, is it expected that control and consent
will be handled outside of the protocol?"
There even is an explicit reference to discussing how control and consent is
handled outside of the protocol.
> 2) There is clearly no consensus inside IETF about it.
This is a different matter. However, there is also no consensus on dropping
this part - certainly I would not agree. It does not make sense to have a "DNS
Privacy Considerations" document that ignores parts of the problem. These
issues are so interlinked that there is no clear single "more privacy" switch.
Each of the technical solutions, both within the protocol and within its
clients, could provide more or less privacy depending on a number of other
considerations, some of which are not about technical protocol design but are
nonetheless relevant. Either you analyze them in full, or the analysis is going
to be incorrect and misleading.
> My personal opinion is now that the best way out of the problem is to
> drop discussions about internal (to the end host) issues.
Again, I disagree. The solution is to find reasonable compromise text that can
be acceptable for all while not making anyone really happy. What was in the
last draft seemed to me quite near to that goal.
--
Vittorio Bertola | Head of Policy & Innovation, Open-Xchange
[email protected]
Office @ Via Treviso 12, 10144 Torino, Italy
_______________________________________________
dns-privacy mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
