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

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

On 19/05/16 00:38, Ben Niven-Jenkins wrote:
> Hi Ben,
> 
> I’ll let the authors respond to most of your comments but I wanted to
> respond to one of them, see below.
> 
>> On 18 May 2016, at 23:32, Ben Campbell <[e-mail]> wrote: 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> 
DISCUSS:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> 
- 7.3: "Making detailed CDNI logging
>> information known to the uCDN does not represent a particular
>> privacy concern because the uCDN is already exposed at request
>> redirection time to most of the information that shows up as CDNI
>> logging information (e.g., enduser IP@, URL, HTTP headers - at
>> least when HTTP redirection is used between uCDN and dCDN)."
>> 
>> I agree this is mostly true for HTTP redirection. But as you
>> mention, the assertion seems to fall down for DNS redirection,
>> where the uCDN may have considerably less information. I think some
>> different guidance for that case may be needed.
> 
> True, but…making detailed CDNI logging information known to the uCDN
> does not expose any more information to the uCDN than if the uCDN had
> chosen to perform the content delivery itself.
> 
> Typically when entity A contracts out work to entity B, entity A is
> entitled to see all records produced by entity B on entity A’s
> behalf.

I don't accept that that applies to all of the information that
could be at issue here. For example if A is in the US and B is in
the EU then things are not that simple.

S.

> 
> Ben
>