Re: [CDNi] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-cdni-logging-25: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>]

Dear Authors,

I've seen a robust exchange between Ben Niven-Jenkins, Ben Campbell, and
Stephen Farrell, but haven't seen a response from the authors. Could you
let me know if you need any help absorbing Ben's ballot position?

Thanks!

Spencer

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Ben Niven-Jenkins <[e-mail]
> wrote:

>
> > On 19 May 2016, at 02:41, Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Cutting to (I think) the substantive bit...
> >
> > On 19/05/16 02:11, Ben Niven-Jenkins wrote:
> >> My intention was to express my opinion that because the uCDN could
> >> have chosen to perform the content delivery itself the dCDN is not
> >> exposing any more information to the uCDN than the uCDN could have
> >> chosen to gather itself if it so desired and therefore IMO there is
> >> no need to provide different guidance for DNS redirection than for
> >> HTTP redirection.
> >
> > Yes, I've seen arguments of that form offered a number of times.
> > I don't find it convincing myself, but recognise that other folks
> > do. And in every case so far, neither side has convinced the other,
> > and sometimes not even understood one another. But let's see if
> > we (me really:-) get better with practice...
> >
> > In this case I'd argue that the "could have chosen" isn't really
> > true - presumably the uCDN deals with the dCDN because it's hard(er)
> > for the uCDN to do the work directly, so it's not really true that
> > the uCDN could have chosen to access the information, at least not
> > at the same cost.
>
> True, but there are lots of possibilities for why the uCDN would;t do it
> itself or why it might those to do the content delivery itself if it was so
> inclined, e.g. maybe if the uCDN is really interested in invading user’s
> privacy, what it gains from that outweighs the additional cost of
> performing the delivery itself. Who knows, I don’t think we can try and
> account for all that variation.
>
> > And there may be aspects of meta-data that are just different because
> > the access was via the dCDN, e.g. perhaps some other client IP address
> > gets used if somethings multihomed, or some ISP infrastructure differs,
> > e.g. HTTP Forwarded might be present and visible to the dCDN but with
> > no similar thing for DNS (or vice versa). I'd not be surprised if even
> > more subtle differences existed over populations of transactions and
> > users and CDNs.
>
> I’m sure there are all sort of things like you suggest above. What is not
> at all clear to me is what specifically the logging draft is meant to do
> about it.
>
> Ultimately it’s a tradeoff I think. I’m not sure we’ll ever agree.
>
> I have nothing more to say that won’t end up just rehashing discussions
> we’ve already had so I don’t intend on participating in this thread any
> longer.
>
> Ben
>
>