On Oct 10, 2014, at 2:02 PM, Mankin, Allison <aman...@verisign.com> wrote:
> After a little bit of online discussion with the chairs-to-be and the AD, I’m > following my earlier email up with a couple of small suggested edits to the > charter. > EXISTING: > Milestones: > Dec 2014 - WG LC on an problem statement document > Mar 2015 - WG selects one or more primary protocol directions > Jul 2015 - WG LC on primary protocol directions > > SUGGESTED: > Milestones: > Dec 2014 - WG LC on an problem statement document > Mar 2015 - WG selects primary protocol directions > May 2015 - WG LC on privacy evaluation document > Jul 2015 - WG LC on primary protocol directions > > The suggested privacy evaluation draft would describe methods for assessing > the results of the DNS private exchange mechanisms. Is the application of > one or several mechanisms an effective choice for mitigating against > pervasive monitoring in particular operational configurations or use cases? > > I argue that this is important to help with the two cases I posed in my first > message, where a channel encryption mechanism could be applied between > End-system and Iterator but not mitigate at all. > > Additional suggested wording about privacy evaluation for the charter body, > addition of one sentence: > EXISTING: > The primary focus of this Working Group is to develop mechanisms that > provide confidentiality between DNS Clients and Iterative Resolvers, > but it may also later consider mechanisms that provide confidentiality > between Iterative Resolvers and Authoritative Servers, or provide > end-to-end confidentiality of DNS transactions. Some of the results of > this working group may be experimental. > > SUGGESTED: > [Add to the end of the above paragraph] The Working Group will also > develop a privacy evaluation document to provide methods for assessing > how well the goal of mitigating against pervasive monitor is met, and > to provide example assessments for common use cases. This sounds like a good addition. We already have at least three proposals that look similar but have slightly different privacy properties. Having a document that catalogs these (which is different than what is in the problem statement) would be useful for both the WG and the larger community. --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list dns-privacy@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
