And then there are mobile phones with wifi and LTE tracking, already massively abused by AP's and companies like Apple are randomising macs.
This draft is good for the ad business, not good for the enduser. Paul Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 25, 2017, at 02:59, Christopher Morrow <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 1:54 PM, Ted Lemon <[email protected]> wrote: >> It would be nice if there were an RFC to point to that used a method that >> didn't include PII. For the use cases of which I am ware, there is no need >> to identify individual devices: only policies. What's lacking is a way to >> do this in the home router, so the PII winds up getting exported to the >> cloud not because that's necessary to accomplish the filtering but because >> it's the only available place where the translation from PII->policy can be >> done in practice. Unfortunately, solving _that_ problem is definitely out >> of scope for DNSOP. >> > isn't the query path here: (largely) > client -> cpe-router -> provider-cache-resolver -> auth-dns > > and at the cache->auth layer it's potentially the case that the provider can > say: "use precision of /24" or "use precision of /17" ? So, there's really > not much "pii" that can be worried over at the provider-cache-resolver (they > already know who you are...) and they (provider) can decide how much > granularity is "important" to release to the upstream authoritative cache. > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
