IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Add] meeting hum: should the IETF take up this work?

"Livingood, Jason" <Jason_Livingood@comcast.com> Tue, 30 July 2019 21:49 UTC

Return-Path: <Jason_Livingood@comcast.com>
X-Original-To: add@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: add@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DDE0120111 for <add@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 14:49:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=comcast.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UpgXTqN33o2Z for <add@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 14:49:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from copdcmhout01.cable.comcast.com (copdcmhout01.cable.comcast.com [162.150.44.71]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3F1D1120074 for <add@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 14:49:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=comcast.com; s=20190412; c=relaxed/simple; q=dns/txt; i=@comcast.com; t=1564523347; x=2428436947; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=YGfpS8bKVBLZH8dgldBNoCGTLE0oe9karGsFANQ9ArM=; b=DYgfuwcMqD/rKEr8Ze+yz8HBaYGu2QbB13wWg5AWbp5Or6R+b1d0QkAPxsbSrNIK IgL86mnWTnrfMU7vmfta1EofDwGcMF7Kq/0X2xahzoIuj1Kw8BsVuYUyje1DxN5w SnaP200K0AfeYM61o1tyCleIOyFn86DRJfWMzl810TOUnfkFAmdEIVB3wZL3TD/U BXFzkwtG/as+y+fqP+T0pWtuP4HjqlLIGMHUZDzqmDm+GqbIE6eEXezFNqt0GzD+ 1P31ziAwre5Tcw2sPoDvvJPMl9C2yT1VA+/pghstPmAxjgKhQ7lfChp3HaLKtd/t JYaBFapWAcbV9Nx7Uen66g==;
X-AuditID: a2962c47-ab9ff7000002e144-9d-5d40bb53fe75
Received: from copdcexc33.cable.comcast.com (copdcmhoutvip.cable.comcast.com [96.114.156.147]) (using TLS with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by copdcmhout01.cable.comcast.com (SMTP Gateway) with SMTP id 3E.F9.57668.35BB04D5; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 15:49:07 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from COPDCEXC37.cable.comcast.com (147.191.125.136) by copdcexc33.cable.comcast.com (147.191.125.132) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1713.5; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 17:49:21 -0400
Received: from COPDCEXC37.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::3aea:a7ff:fe36:8a94]) by COPDCEXC37.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::3aea:a7ff:fe36:8a94%15]) with mapi id 15.01.1713.008; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 17:49:21 -0400
From: "Livingood, Jason" <Jason_Livingood@comcast.com>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>, "add@ietf.org" <add@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Add] meeting hum: should the IETF take up this work?
Thread-Index: AQHVQaQWSIb2oY9ssEeUjC1jPdmyRKbZCskAgAABXACAAAQtgIABMd6AgAD6woCAAGikAIAIF/KA
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2019 21:49:21 +0000
Message-ID: <488E2CE0-73D5-4B9E-A5AD-28FDCB95ED2A@cable.comcast.com>
References: <CAChr6Sx9TEt6CMzRRrdb-HwT_k987oW=4yF1FCbDF17zkaE2Vg@mail.gmail.com> <AAEA003A-58DB-4FEE-81B2-BBFE9BBB2A37@rfc1035.com> <CAChr6SwA+HM4u5-xpUxQXPH8G8k7sfm6AETJJ019HE=bsq+OXA@mail.gmail.com> <8F094057-DFBC-4732-9DA4-BE46E7914C8A@rfc1035.com> <20190724165951.GB29051@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <821B448B-F7EA-46A5-837D-DA0E8C60643A@open-xchange.com> <d653d422-4a71-9fab-fd2e-b8ddaa476f91@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <d653d422-4a71-9fab-fd2e-b8ddaa476f91@nostrum.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.1b.0.190715
x-originating-ip: [68.87.29.9]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <1A22C91B6F65D84D87AF74B69A5C4D61@comcast.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Forward
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprLKsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsWSUDRnsm7wbodYg9V/TS32/F3EbvH/9Do2 ByaPJUt+MnnM2vmEJYApqoHRpiSjKDWxxCU1LTWvONWOSwED2CSlpuUXpbomFuVUBqXmpCZi VwZSmZKak1mWWqSP1Rh9rOYkdDFlPJ22k63gBF/FtSPr2RoYZ/B1MXJySAiYSPTtWcPexcjF ISRwhEniysnZUE4Lk8TS/WcZIZzTjBJHrj1hBmlhEzCTuLvwCpgtIuAgMf3/FRYQW1jASWLp /cXsEHFnicdbPzFC2FESM593sILYLAKqEo+aPoDZvAIuEnMWnYZasIRZYubFv2wgCU4Be4lX V76ALWAUEJP4fmoNE4jNLCAucevJfCaIuwUkluw5zwxhi0q8fPwPbKiogL7El3ObWCDichLL ft4BquEA6tWUWL9LH2KMlcTGhUdYIWxFiSndD9kh7hGUODnzCVSruMThIztYJzBKzEKyeRbC pFlIJs1CMmkWkkkLGFlXMfIamhnpGZoa6JmY6JkbbmIEJppF03TcdzB+OB97iFGAg1GJh7d9 qUOsEGtiWXFl7iFGCQ5mJRHexeL2sUK8KYmVValF+fFFpTmpxYcYpTlYlMR5D0/WiBUSSE8s Sc1OTS1ILYLJMnFwSjUwevzY8mS2+a/bf51Nclzebpv1PmB/3+Xked7fSli/ikY+O6okH9uw dYF9iM6xfINp3UG7anWXWrDeYGR5Fr360MkMp5rL+vynoguiO1N4tsxkm8275NPBdacPdl60 j7rmtkamMMf9ybanO89eLXL4vOzZTqPLGjPm5e05sbOom++smpLaxSJmViWW4oxEQy3mouJE ALhb1+QwAwAA
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/add/Gm32TFKZFxRyIg4OMmF_O1AzFzk>
Subject: Re: [Add] meeting hum: should the IETF take up this work?
X-BeenThere: add@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Applications Doing DNS <add.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/add>, <mailto:add-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/add/>
List-Post: <mailto:add@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:add-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/add>, <mailto:add-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2019 21:49:26 -0000

On 7/25/19, 10:12 AM, "Add on behalf of Adam Roach" <add-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of adam@nostrum.com> wrote:
> You can see, for example, Cloudflare's associated privacy 
    policy at https://developers.cloudflare.com/1.1.1.1/commitment-to-privacy/privacy-policy/firefox/ 
 
[JL] This speaks to the DNS query/response. But with DoH, this is contained inside of an HTTP envelope, so to speak, which has much more rich tracking - noted at https://www.cloudflare.com/privacypolicy/ under website visitors (which I presume applies to all HTTP transactions). So the confluence of DNS and HTTP here seems interesting to better understand and document as TRR-style policies evolve. Since there is an HTTP server involved in DoH, presumably all the normal HTTP log items are seen & processed and can be logged, like user agent, cookies, and so on.

[JL] In addition, I suspect a concern (for the very high scale centralised DoH platforms) is not just the per-user privacy policy but also what aggregated business intelligence a global scale platform would be able to develop (e.g. of a population of 500M users, how many have queried for *.netflix.com in the past N hours, by country, ASN, user agent, etc.), relative to competitors or potential competitors. So I suspect these concerns may arise, at least for platforms of very high scale / penetration.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email