Re: [art] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-appsawg-mdn-3798bis-15: (with COMMENT)

Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Thu, 01 December 2016 10:39 UTC

Return-Path: <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
X-Original-To: art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 422F4129624; Thu, 1 Dec 2016 02:39:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.896, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=isode.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 ZeBEkgKt3iuL; Thu, 1 Dec 2016 02:39:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from waldorf.isode.com (waldorf.isode.com [62.232.206.188]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEBAD12962E; Thu, 1 Dec 2016 02:39:14 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1480588754; d=isode.com; s=june2016; i=@isode.com; bh=FEasuismg78jXSTYFcn2DVYisoG6f/Vhoo7I4HRKRqE=; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description; b=Vv+vZYbVK+dK8lcD9nwTuNy5yTxCvHP+kS/xNJ4v97iwwHK2Ec7KdTItFKncgHYeq9A1DJ c8nd3FJycScatW11IymmdlupA2z5fE6Fi3Mj5UAEgZu8+uH7JiIMG5AoWF4i2AMwA/CNCL pCn9+uRRPi/yS7e9pEyzUtxyCw+SX3w=;
Received: from [172.20.1.215] (dhcp-215.isode.net [172.20.1.215]) by waldorf.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPSA id <WD=90QAZukxM@waldorf.isode.com>; Thu, 1 Dec 2016 10:39:13 +0000
To: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
References: <148051936421.14054.3370105373759594391.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Message-ID: <5cc95ff6-0292-af6a-0768-75cc87ad51dc@isode.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2016 10:38:56 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0
In-Reply-To: <148051936421.14054.3370105373759594391.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/AlxkahcDEB-SXYJLcUD6uK3cCDo>
Cc: appsawg-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-appsawg-mdn-3798bis@ietf.org, superuser@gmail.com, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, art@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [art] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-appsawg-mdn-3798bis-15: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Applications and Real-Time Area Discussion <art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/art>, <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/art/>
List-Post: <mailto:art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/art>, <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2016 10:39:18 -0000

Hi Alissa,


On 30/11/2016 15:22, Alissa Cooper wrote:

> = Section 6.2.2 =
>
> "The "Reporting-UA" field (Section 3.2.1) might contain enough
>     information to uniquely identify a specific device, usually when
>     combined with other characteristics, particularly if the user agent
>     sends excessive details about the user's system or extensions.
>     However, the source of unique information that is least expected by
>     users is proactive negotiation, including the Accept-Language header
>     fields."
>
> I think the use of "However" is tripping me up here. Earlier in the
> document you have good recommendations about how to mitigate the risk of
> fingerprinting based on the Reporting-UA field. That guidance is valid
> regardless of whether other header fields might also contribute to
> fingerprinting or whether users would expect that (frankly, I don't see
> how user expectations are relevant here, since most users don't
> understand fingerprinting anyway). I think something along the following
> lines to replace the last sentence above would be more accurate: "Even
> when the guidance in Section 3.2.1 is followed to avoid fingerprinting,
> other sources of unique information may still be present, including the
> Accept-Language header fields."
This was copied from an HTTP RFC, but you have a point. I used a variant 
of your text (I changed "including" to "such as").

Best Regards,
Alexey