Re: [Add] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-reddy-dprive-dprive-privacy-policy-00.txt

[tirumal reddy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Paul,

Please see inline

On Sat, 5 Oct 2019 at 23:28, Paul Wouters <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Sat, 5 Oct 2019, tirumal reddy wrote:
>
> > We have published
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-reddy-dprive-dprive-privacy-policy-00 that
> discusses a mechanism for the
> > DNS server to communicate its cryptographically signed privacy policy
> information to a DNS client. By evaluating the DNS
> > privacy policy and the signatory, the DNS client can choose to  select
> or avoid a DoT/DoH server if it doesn't comply with
> > the client's privacy expectations.
>
> Section 10 Security Considerations describes well why I think this is
> not a good idea. Publishing a privacy policy in a computer consumable
> way has no relationship to the actual DNS server's privacy policy
> used.
>

No, the privacy policy also conveys a URL that points to the human readable
privacy policy formation of the DNS server. Public DNS resolvers have
published privacy policy statements (for example, see
https://developers.cloudflare.com/1.1.1.1/commitment-to-privacy/privacy-policy/firefox/).
If a firm violates the privacy claims, it will most likely face penalty
(similar to FTC imposing fine on facebook).


>
> This is not a technical wire problem to solve with an RFC. It is a
> social-economic issue. Can we trust vendor X? And vendor X making
> claims in JSON about this isn't useful from a technical point of
> view, no matter how or where and with what such statements are
> (self)signed.
>

Not really, you probably missed the privacy consideration section. User
consent is mandatory to use the discovered DoT/DoH servers, the section
says the following:

   Users are expected to indicate to their system in some way that they
   trust certain PAT signers (e.g., if working for Example, Inc., the
   user's system is configured to trust example.com signing the PAT).
   Separately, the user is expected to indicate to their system their
   PAT privacy requirements (e.g., logging, etc.).  By doing so, thee DNS
   client can automatically discover local DNS-over-TLS or DNS-over-
   HTTPS server, validate the PAT signature and check if the PAT
   complies with user's privacy needs, prior to using that DNS-over-TLS
   or DNS-over-HTTPS server for DNS queries.


Cheers,

-Tiru




> It's a great topic for consumer advocay organisations, the EFF or
> ACLU or EU commisioners. I do not think this is a technical problem
> needing a technical standard from the IETF. And any automated
> consumption of this leading to changed DNS client behaviour would
> be dangerous.
>

> Paul
>