IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Sat, 05 October 2019 17:58 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
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 985F1120861 for <add@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 Oct 2019 10:58:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 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_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
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 wlfkxQs6lOVP for <add@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 Oct 2019 10:58:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [193.110.157.68]) (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 12F98120072 for <add@ietf.org>; Sat, 5 Oct 2019 10:58:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46lvbx2W4rzFhg; Sat, 5 Oct 2019 19:58:05 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1570298285; bh=osFUfLS/+JdWBkvJVqITbsZT5oqGj5Y84O+rEjWOjpw=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=Gpz7bE/V5aLXU/F93+11RsZSibC70+qcaiypXh3GBSCY0mHxLCbZycuwDE6HP/CmH c96vkkf6Yd2pusN2O9wWaqESwFhSEatewpdeRAN2NYnUYhz/p30S25/n7R/SGEQNwj WFKSGVjDYvtBolDo/1a9r8mzNsjSAHtC0tAcw3lo=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KdSPLCoWn-kI; Sat, 5 Oct 2019 19:58:03 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [76.10.157.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Sat, 5 Oct 2019 19:58:03 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C431278BA5; Sat, 5 Oct 2019 13:58:01 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 bofh.nohats.ca C431278BA5
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8B13406B80E; Sat, 5 Oct 2019 13:58:01 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sat, 05 Oct 2019 13:58:01 -0400
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: tirumal reddy <kondtir@gmail.com>
cc: ADD Mailing list <add@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAFpG3gdpYASvfz_ey=fsh6+8LQ11EJGyU-dVxH7_1QmVeiAQKg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1910051351420.26913@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <157009854908.16293.4269133049514081713.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAFpG3gdpYASvfz_ey=fsh6+8LQ11EJGyU-dVxH7_1QmVeiAQKg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/add/N34zBwozaZraktMHQRTZkEsVaDM>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 06 Oct 2019 10:58:47 -0700
Subject: Re: [Add] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-reddy-dprive-dprive-privacy-policy-00.txt
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: Sat, 05 Oct 2019 17:58:11 -0000

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.

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.

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email